Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

TRADE

Return ordered,
Account relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1967.—[Mr. Jay.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Independence (Discussions)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions he has had with the Government of Fiji on the subject of independence.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Frederick Lee): None, Sir.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the New Commonwealth reported him recently as having said in Fiji that the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism was interfering with the affairs of Fiji, and that he, the Minister, said that Britain was in no way bound to honour the Committee's Resolutions? Is that a true report or is it not? If it is true, does it not apply equally to Gibraltar as well as to Fiji?

Mr. Lee: I cannot answer on whether I was correctly reported, but I certainly believe that whilst we are in charge of British Colonies we will make decisions which are binding upon us all. Our

policies, as I have said many times, are that if Fiji or any other Colony wants independence, and can sustain it, we shall see that she gets it.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed very cautiously and very slowly in this matter raised by his hon. Friend, because, as he knows, there arc perhaps partially genuine fears by the Fijians of Indian domination if we go too quickly here?

Mr. Lee: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was replying on the principle of our colonial policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a new Constitution has just been brought into being for Fiji. They recently had an election upon it. It gave universal suffrage, and I think that we should now allow Fiji to go ahead with the new Constitution and work its way through.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Secretary of State's Visit

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his latest visit to Hong Kong.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

Mr. Frederick Lee: On my second visit to Hong Kong, I reached an understanding that the colony would pay an increased contribution over the next four years towards the costs of British troops stationed there. This will now amount to £4·525 million a year towards the recurrent and capital costs. Hong Kong will also undertake some responsibilities for military works which will raise the total of their assistance to defence costs to £5 million a year.
These arrangements are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. It has not been easy for Hong Kong with their great social problems to increase their defence contribution. We are grateful for


the understanding they have shown of our problems. We have recognised their difficulties and I think we have reached a fair settlement.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the expenditure of this money is justified in view of the fact that these troops have little military value, but have only a civilian potential, as has been shown already in Hong Kong? Does he think that it is really necessary, as the United States maintains in the harbour of Hong Kong the most powerful naval presence in the Far East?

Mr. Lee: Certainly it is the opinion of the Hong Kong Government and Her Majesty's Government that these troops are necessary, and in my discussions with a great many people in Hong Kong they all seemed to think so too.

Mr. Blaker: In case it may be suggested from some quarters that Hong Kong should contribute even more than the £5 million mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, will the Secretary of State confirm that in contrast with most colonies and with many Commonwealth countries. Hong Kong receives and has for some time received no grant-in-aid from Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much Hong Kong is contributing towards the upkeep of the garrison, apart from direct payments and building programmes?

Mr. Lee: This is the total that the Hong Kong Government have agreed to pay towards British troops there. They have, of course, their own battalion as well, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is an increase from £1·5 million a year which they agreed to pay in 1958. They also agreed to pay £6 million over six years for work costs and so on, which is about £1 million a year. All this is now commuted into the £5 million which I have mentioned.

Mr. Thorpe: I was in Hong Kong on the occasion of the Secretary of State's first visit. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these money-raising visits of his, which seem to be the only object of any Minister of this Government visiting

Hong Kong, are producing increasing cynicism? Does he not think that, although this is an important matter, he might make a third visit to see that there is representation for those whom he is seeking to tax?

Mr. Lee: I do not wish at this stage to enter into a constitutional argument about Hong Kong. I think the hon. Gentleman knows one or two of the slight problems which are involved in that.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of these answers, I shall try to pursue the matter on the Adjournment.

Fishermen (Kidnapping)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken over the recent kidnapping off the Chinese coast of Hong Kong fishermen licensed to fish in those waters; and what have been the results.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse): During October, 10 men working on oyster beds off the New Territories were picked up by junks and removed to China. Since representations were made, six of these men have returned to Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities have informed us that the other four men wish to remain in China.

Sir W. Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that reply from the Chinese Government? We hear a good deal about Gibraltar and Spain at the moment. Does not this make us think sometimes that, if we keep on giving in to China with regard to people being kidnapped and also with regard to the graveyards in Peking, we may let ourselves in for the same sort of trouble over Hong Kong?

Mr. Stonehouse: I understand that the four men have, in fact, returned to their families in China.

East Asia Textile Mills

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inquire and report into the reasons which led to the dismissal of Chung Hon Loong from employment at the East Asia Textile Mills in Hong Kong, which action had precipitated a strike of those employed at the Mills; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Mr. Chung has been dismissed on two occasions: the first on 4th November, when he walked out of the factory after his request for a day's sick leave had been refused; the second on 13th November after an assault on a foreman.
Following the first dismissal a dispute arose in the factory as to the terms of his reinstatement. This culminated in a strike being called on 11th November. Subsequently nine other workers were discharged for their part in the dispute.
On 22nd November the men's union and the management agreed to conciliation by the Labour Department. Since then there have been ten meetings between the two sides. The most recent of them took place this morning. I have no news of the outcome.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the conditions against which Mr. Chung and other textile workers are protesting were described by the secretary of the International Federation of Textile and Garment Workers as sufficient to make him feel ashamed that he was an Englishman? Does my right hon. Friend take cognisance of that fact and other matters in connection with this strike when he seeks to put the blame on Mr. Chung and his fellow workers?

Mr. Lee: I was not aware that I tried to put any blame on Mr. Chung. As I have said, 10 meetings have taken place. One, which took place the day before yesterday, got very near to settlement and I am hoping that the one which took place this morning will actually achieve that aim.

Mr. A. Royle: Would not the Minister agree that the conditions of textile workers in many of the factories in Hong Kong are of as high a standard as anywhere in the world? Will he also agree that this was a private industrial matter and not one in which the Government could intervene?

Mr. Lee: It goes beyond that. When I was in Hong Kong, I discussed the matter with the Labour Commissioner. As I have said in my Answer, they are doing everything possible to be of assistance in this matter. In one or two respects I would like to see more progress in Hong 'Kong, especially in the provisions for 'women and young people.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA

Boundary Commission

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will appoint an electoral boundary commission for Bermuda; and what will be its composition.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The boundary commission will be appointed by the Governor. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 22nd November, its chairman will be appointed from outside Bermuda and one of its members will be a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the Commonwealth. These two will be appointed by the Governor in his discretion. Two members will be appointed on the advice of the leader of the majority party and one on the advice of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Johnson: I welcome that answer, but is it not a fact that eight working-class constituencies with about 24,000 coloured voters will have 16 Members whereas 12 white constituencies with something under 20,000 voters will have 24 Members? Is it 'impossible to have 40 single-Member constituencies on a more equitable basis?

Mr. Lee: The arrangements we arrived at at the conference have brought about a situation in which there will be far and away greater equality in voting than there has even been before, and, I would venture to say, far greater equality than there is in Britain at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Disturbances

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the renewed disturbances in Mauritius since September last, culminating in the arrest of 150 persons at Curepipe on 29th October.

Mr. Stonehouse: At the end of October over 100 persons, refused an offer of work on sugar estates, alleging political discrimination. They sat peacefully


for three days and three nights at various places between Mahebourg and Curepipe and 105 persons were arrested at Curepipe on 29th October for obstructing the highway. They were remanded in prison until 4th November when they pleaded guilty to obstructing the police. Taking into account that they were first offenders and had spent six days in prison on remand, they were discharged.

Mr. Johnson: As it is now admitted that over a hundred persons were clamped in gaol for a few days, why was I given such a soothing and soporific Answer on 8th November, by which time cables and newspaper reports about these incidents must have come to the Minister's office?

Mr. Stonehouse: I repeat what I said on 8th November, which is as true now as it was then. There have been demonstrations by groups of unemployed but none of these demonstrations has resulted in any damage to life or property. I have no reason to change the form of my reply on that.

Mr. Driberg: Since my hon. Friend has mentioned the unemployed, can he say, in view of the very high degree of chronic unemployment in Mauritius, whether some special arrangements can be made comparable with those for Malta?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir; we are examining various ways by which the economy can be diversified. As my hon. Friend knows, the economy is almost completely dependent on sugar, and there are extreme problems in arranging for any new industrial development. These questions are being examined.

General Election

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to announce the date for the holding of a general election in Mauritius.

Mr. Stonehouse: It is most desirable that elections should be held at the earliest practicable time. The completion of the electoral rolls which is expected in the near future will enable the election to be held in 1967, and during recent discussions the Premier of

Mauritius confirmed that he would wish the elections to be held during next year.

Mr. Tapsell: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at the Constitutional Conference held some time ago now in Mauritius it was agreed that continuing political uncertainty would be damaging to the island, and he himself, I think, on a subsequent visit to the island, gave an undertaking that elections would be held as soon as physically possible. May we have an assurance that these elections will be held in the earlier rather than the later part of 1967?

Mr. Stonehouse: There have been delays because there were disputes about the electoral system, which I had to investigate in June and July last. Following that, a team of observers for the compilation of the rolls had to be appointed and sent out to Mauritius. All that resulted in considerable delay, but I certainly hope that the election will be held within the next few months.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Finance

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has now taken to give financial assistance to Gibraltar.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the outcome of his financial talks last week with the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

Mr. Frederick Lee: During the talks with the Governor of Gibraltar, the Chief Minister and his Deputy, which took place in London last week, I informed them that Her Majesty's Government agreed, subject to Parliamentary approval, to provide a special grant-in-aid of £100,000 to the budget of Gibraltar in 1967. As to capital finance, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 3rd November, 1966. [Vol. 735, c.
160.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Owing to the foolish weakness of the Foreign Secretary in saying that we would continue negotiations with Spain while the present restrictions continue in respect of


Gibraltar, is it not necessary to make a big effort to develop Gibraltar's great asset of tourism? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman come forward with a major proposal to make use of this piece of sterling sunshine?

Mr. Lee: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting the points I made in the reply to which I referred. When I was in Gibraltar, we made the necessary arrangements for the economy of Gibraltar to be redirected, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, towards tourism rather than dependence on Spain. We pointed out then that we would support the Gibraltar Government in that effort, and we made an initial donation of £600,000.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the Spanish Government's rejection of the reference to the International Court, in itself a public admission of the weakness of Spain's case, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is likely now to be a very protracted business and that we must be as generous as possible in helping to rebuild the economy of Gibraltar independently of Spain for the future?

Mr. Lee: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is precisely what we have said we will do. We have agreed that the plan which the Gibraltar Government have produced is a workmanlike plan. We know how much it will cost, and we have said that we will support them to the hilt in carrying, it out.

Mr. Wilkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that Gibraltarians themselves, and especially the Legislative Council, deeply appreciate the financial aid which has been offered to them and, more especially, the promise made by the Foreign Secretary that we will continue to sustain them as and when required? Is he further aware that what the Gibraltarians really want to do is to become economically self-sufficient as a result of the aid we give them?

Mr. Lee: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. The spirit of the people of Gibraltar is very fine indeed. I could not find anyone who is not utterly and completely devoted to the idea of remaining British, and we shall do everything we possibly can to sustain them in it.

Future

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, following the refusal of the Spanish Government to submit their claim to Gibraltar to the World Court, Her Majesty's Government will reaffirm their pledge of full support to the people of Gibraltar in their wish to determine their own future.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We will continue to recognise the principle that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are paramount.

Mr. Tapsell: Cannot the Secretary of State be a little more categorical? Is it not extraordinary that when, ever since the Durham Report, this House of Commons has supported the principle of self-determination for peoples within the Commonwealth, the right hon. Gentleman finds it so difficult to say this explicitly in the House?

Mr. Lee: We have to take into account what is happening at the United Nations. I believe that so far the method by which Her Majesty's Government have decided to conduct this matter has not been unsuccessful. The fact that Spain decided not to avail herself of our invitation speaks for itself.

Mr. Wilkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if right hon. and hon. Members who have been questioning him this afternoon about Gibraltar were to attend the report-back meeting of the recent delegation, they might receive even more enlightenment than has been imparted to them already?

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Why cannot our delegation at the United Nations say more about the pressure which is being exerted on Gibraltarians at the frontier and the hardship which they are suffering? Why cannot this be mentioned?

Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Member will read the latest reports of what went on. I should have thought that Lord Caradon and his colleagues were to be congratulated on a very fine job of work.

Mr. Maudling: Cannot the Secretary of State make it quite clear this afternoon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there can be no question whatever


of any transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?

Mr. Lee: I cannot go further than I have gone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—really, this is quite unreasonable. We have now reached a situation in which, I would have thought, there was greater knowledge at the United Nations of our side of the case than ever before. I hope that hon. Members will not try to destroy it.

Mr. Maudling: This is a very simple, clear question. Will the Secretary of State, or will he not, confirm that Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating transferring the sovereignty of Gibraltar against the wishes of Gibraltar's inhabitants?

Mr. Lee: If we were contemplating transferring that sovereignty, we would have had no need to go all through this formula in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS

Mr. Pindling (Talks)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about his recent conversations with the Leader of the Bahamas Opposition.

Mr. Sharples: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take in the light of complaints concerning affairs in the Bahamas officially made to him by Mr. Lynden Pindling.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Mr. Pindling raised matters relating to the internal affairs of the Bahamas on which I have also had representations from other sources. I asked the Governor to come to London so that I could have the benefit of his personal advice; he arrived this morning. He has told me that the Premier of the Bahamas welcomes an authoritative investigation by outside experts into the allegations concerning the administration of casino gambling in the Bahamas.
Allegations have also been made against certain members of the Bahamas Government and Administration. Since, I understand, these are to be the subject of legal action for libel, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have felt deep concern at suggestions in the American and British Press that American gangsters are present in the Bahamas operating gambling rackets and that members of the Bahamas Executive Council are concerned, and that we are grateful for his statement today?

Mr. Sharples: While welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, may I ask what form the investigation will take? Will it be in the form of a Royal Commission, as has been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Lee: I am having further discussions with the Governor and I can then report back to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES AND MAURITIUS

Family Planning

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any progress to report in the provision of family planning instruction and facilities in the Seychelles and Mauritius.

Mr. Stonehouse: In Mauritius, the number of family planning clinics has been increased from 98 to 124 and the programme is very successful.
In view of the importance of controlling the population problem in Seychelles I am urgently considering ways and means of expanding the family planning programme which was started in 1965 with one clinic in Victoria and which now has a second clinic in Praslin.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my sincere congratulations on his significant success in this work, which I tried to get launched when I occupied the position which he now holds and which I believe to be of real importance to these territories?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW HEBRIDES

Labour Legislation

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when labour legislation will be implemented in the New Hebrides.

Mr. Stonehouse: In discussions with the French authorities a large measure of agreement has already been reached. The final agreement should not take long.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to expedite these conversations? They have been going on for far too long and the conditions are intolerable.

Mr. Stonehouse: We are going ahead with them as quickly as we can, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the issues are very complicated.

Land

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in land reform in the New Hebrides; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stonehouse: We have been examining with the French authorities a number of matters concerning land in the New Hebrides, including the possibility of setting up a joint working party to go into questions concerning title and the establishment of a land code. I hope that it will soon be possible to reach agreement on the appropriate action.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman institute conversations with the missions to try to persuade them to disgorge the enormous holdings of land which they have in the New Hebrides.

Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly examine that suggestion.

SEYCHELLES

Cost of Living

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated increase in the cost of living on the Seychelles during the last three years.

Mr. Stonehouse: Fifteen per cent.

Mr. Clark: Will the Minister outline to the House the steps which are being taken to keep in check the inflation which is causing this increase in the cost of living? Will he also make certain that the report on the cost of living, which he has refused to publish, is made available to the Salaries Commission which

is now sitting to deal with Civil Service claims for increases which have been outstanding for three years, so that the Salaries Commission can back-date any awards which it makes?

Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly bear those suggestions in mind.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who take some interest in colonial matters regard the Seychelles as perhaps the most depressing of the dependent territories left in our care? Will he consider some time the sending out of a high-powered Commission to look at this place, to do something about it with a view to helping the workers, the cost of living and the whole economic set-up?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have just returned from the Seychelles and I agree with the view which has just been expressed. I assure the House that we are taking urgent steps to improve the position there.

GAS

Natural Gas

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to provide for a National Natural Gas Corporation which will bring into national ownership all present and future natural gas resources, absorb private concessions and distribute natural gas to all users, public and private, on a fair commercial basis under conditions laid down by Statute.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Power if he will give an assurance that private enterprise industries investing in North Sea gas exploration and production will not be nationalised.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): The Government have no plans to provide for a national natural gas corporation or for nationalising the private undertakings now engaged in the search for oil and gas in the North Sea.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a modest estimate is that by 1980 natural gas will provide 64 million tons of coal equivalent for the country's fuel economy? If, therefore, time is to denationalise the coal industry, should


not the nation be acquiring this valuable national asset in place of coal?

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend does no service to the coalmining industry—which has had a great deal of difficulty as a result of statements of this sort—by producing figures for which there can be no reliable evidence. It is not true that natural gas, on any of the calculations which can at present be made, offers an alternative to coal.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the Minister see any further ways in which he can seek to encourage private investment in this important industry? If so, what might they be?

Mr. Marsh: At the moment, there is no reason to have any doubts or objections about the rate of investment in the North Sea. Therefore, the second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Minister appreciate that the North Sea is not private property and therefore should not be exploited by private persons and companies for their profit to the exclusion of that of the British nation?

Mr. Marsh: If the position were not as set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Government would be under no obigation to co-operate, but a change was in fact made and under the terms of the Continental Shelf Act the North Sea was partly nationalised. The Government have control over the sale of the gas and the price to be charged, so that there is now provision for sales to be provided for the benefit of the country.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Whilst recognising that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman will give considerable satisfaction to many of the people who have put their capital at risk in these ventures, may I ask if the Minister will not try to dissuade his hon. Friends from continuing to make their rude noises about the nationalisation of North Sea gas which are leading those who are negotiating on the price to feel that to some extent they are negotiating under duress?

Mr. Marsh: There is no evidence of this either. Negotiations are taking place at the moment. I could wish they were being conducted a little more privately, for I think some of the public statements

are of no help to either side, but I think there is no evidence at all at the present time that the situation is not working to the national interest.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations with the oil companies over the price to be charged by them for the sale of natural gas to the Gas Council.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power what new plans he has for ensuring that the public interest is safeguarded in current negotiations on the price to be paid for North Sea gas.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a statement on his policy in respect of charges to be levied for gases coming into the grid from supplies obtained from the North Sea.

Mr. Marsh: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 21 and 23 together.
I would refer to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 15th December. [Vol 738 Col. 150.]

Mr. Palmer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the oil companies have a vested interest in keeping the price of natural gas as high as possible because they fear competition in the sale of oil in this country?

Mr. Marsh: If this were so, natural gas would not make an appreciable difference to oil sales. The fact that the price is under the control of the Government means that it is a price which is arrived at after negotiation, and it is a price for sale to a monopoly buyer. In these circumstances the national interest is clearly safeguarded.

Mr. McNamara: Will not my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the veiled threat of blackmail from the oil companies, through the threat of non-co-operation, he ought to reconsider the answer which he gave to the earlier question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)?

Mr. Marsh: I repeat what I said before. These are difficult negotiations; they are terribly important negotiations; and they are not helped, I agree, by some of the


comments which have been appearing in the national Press and neither side is assisted by this. There is still no reason why the oil companies should not be able to get a fair price for their product, but it is in the interest of the nation to make sure it does not pay more than is fair for it. The two sides must come together to fix a sensible price.

Mr. Barber: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the public interest demands that the price to be paid for North Sea gas should be such as to provide an incentive to the operating companies to find and produce the maximum amount? Secondly, is he aware that the operating companies are daily becoming more despondent at the inordinate delay and the inept handling of the negotiations?

Mr. Marsh: Taking the last question first, I do not believe that the negotiations are inept. In fact they have hardly got off the ground yet. So far as the price is concerned, I sometimes think that judging by the Press I am perhaps the only person left in the British Isles who does not know what it is going to be. But, whatever it may be, one of the factors to be taken into account is the insurance of a sufficient return which will make it commercially worth while for the companies to maximise exploration. Having said that, the public also have an interest and it is not unreasonable that it should not pay an unreasonably high price.

West Midlands Gas Board (Charges)

Mr.Grieve: asked the Minister of Power (1) whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in the West Midlands area with increases which have been imposed by the West Midlands Gas Board in charges for gas; whether these charges had his prior approval; and why he has permitted this breach in his policy of keeping down prices;
(2) whether he is aware that the West Midlands Gas Board has this year introduced a standing charge to gas consumers, irrespective of the amount of gas consumed; whether he is satisfied that this is consistent with the Government's policy of keeping prices down; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Power why he approved the establishment by the West Midlands Gas Board of a charge of 13s. for the first 13 therms of gas consumed per quarter, as this bears hardly on those whose consumption of gas is low, particularly pensioners living alone.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Dr. Jeremy Bray): I would refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) on 24th May. The standing charge is not related to gas consumption. It was introduced to ensure that all consumers met the minimum costs of providing them with a gas supply, irrespective of the amount of gas used.—[Vol. 729, c. 59.]

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a rise of 15 per cent. in the cost of gas in the Midlands since 31st May, at a time when incomes have been frozen, has caused hardship and dissatisfaction? Does he not appreciate also that a standing charge of 13s. a quarter bears most hardly on old-age pensioners, many of whom now have bills for gas of 13s. for the standing charge and a few pence for the consumption of gas? Does he appreciate that his answer will, therefore, cause grave dissatisfaction to those people?

Dr. Bray: No. The price increase took place on 24th May, well before the standstill. The average increase is 7½per cent., not 15 per cent. The Board last increased its charges in 1962, and before that in 1957. In view of these circumstances the hon. and learned Member has given the House a totally misleading impression of the situation.

Mr. Fowler: But my hon. Friend has still not answered this, that this charge bears most hardly on old-age pensioners. Will he think of some means of easing the effect upon those living alone, particularly the old?

Dr. Bray: There are many methods for the payment of gas bills deliberately designed for those who take only a small amount and, of course, the Ministry of Social Security takes into consideration the cost of fuel in fixing supplementary pensions.

Mr. Hattersley: Can my hon. Friend give the House the assurance that every


pensioner who so wishes it is allowed to pay the increased charges by means of a weekly payment meter rather than by a quarterly lump sum?

Dr. Bray: I understand that not only pre-payment meters but also a coupon scheme are available by which payment can be made weekly for consumption.

Mr. Grieve: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

ELECTRICITY

Sculcoates Power Station, Hull

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Power whether, in view of the threatened shortage of water for cooling purposes for the Sculcoates Power Station, Hull, which may result in that station being temporarily closed, he will issue a direction to the Yorkshire Electricity Board to ensure that adequate supplies of electricity will at all times be available for the city of Hull.

Dr. Bray: I understand that there is no threat to the cooling water supplies for Sculcoates power station.

Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend explain the reason for the recent statement by the Yorkshire and Ouse River Board that, because of the level at the drain mill level, he will consider suspending the arrangement with the electricity board?

Dr. Bray: The river authority and the generating board are discussing an arrangement for keeping water at the required level. I understand that the trouble is too much and not too little water.

Electricity Boards (Installation Charges)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Power when he expects to conclude his discussions with the electricity boards on the subject of installation charges made to local authorities.

Mr. Marsh: Early in the New Year, I hope.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread interest in the conclusion of these talks, not least among those local authorities who believe the boards are using these installation charges to create a market for domestic electric heating?

Mr. Marsh: Without going along entirely with what the hon. Member has said, I think this is a case that deserves careful consideration, and there has to be an arrangement which is fair to both industries; but it is, of course, the fact that these are very difficult and complex matters. Clearly, it is one we have to come to a conclusion on.

Nuclear Power Stations (Depreciation Policy)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Power whether he will increase the period of amortisation of nuclear power stations to 30 years.

Dr. Bray: The Central Electricity Generating Board decides its own depreciation policy, and regards a 20-year period as appropriate for its own nuclear stations. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to intervene.

Mr. Webster: In view of the fact that the American nuclear power stations are built on a 30-year amortisation period, are we not at a very considerable disadvantage when we try to export in competition with them?

Dr. Bray: There is no reason to believe that the A.G.R. stations will have a shorter life than those using competing systems such as the American systems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Indeed, rather the opposite is the case.

MINISTRY OF POWER

Petrol (Octane Content)

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce regulations to compel petrol companies to exhibit the octane-content of the grades of petrol on sale to the public.

Dr. Bray: No, Sir. I am informed that a British Standard Specification, associated with an agreed nomenclature, is to be published early next year and my right hon. Friend expects the petrol


companies to adopt it voluntarily. Octane rating is not the only indication of quality.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but would he not agree that motorists, like other consumers, have a right to be sure what they are buying for their money? Is he aware that there is a company in my own constituency which does publish the octane content? It has found it perfectly possible to control the octane content? Is my hon. Friend aware that if one wants to—there may be companies which do not want to—one can control the octane content of petrol on sale?

Dr. Bray: My right hon. Friend will recall that a Bill—the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill—was introduced in the previous Parliament. It is the intention of the Government to produce a similar Bill as soon as possible. However, I do not think petrol companies will not co-operate with my right hon. Friend in the way I have suggested.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Are we to assume, then, that there is at present no significant difference between the products of the various companies?

Dr. Bray: I would ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the new British Standard Specification.

Steel Industry (Capital Investment)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power if he will estimate the value of capital investment in the steel industry in the year ending 31st December, 1966; and what investment is now budgeted for the year ending 31st December, 1967.

Mr. Marsh: About £60–£70 million in 1966 and rather more in 1967.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that the process of nationalising steel has cut back capital investment drastically? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the steel plant manufacturers are dependent on an active home market to keep their industry thriving?

Mr. Marsh: There is no evidence that expenditure is being held up by the prospect of nationalisation. In fact the figure for 1964 was £55 million, and for 1965 £50 million. Therefore, the figures of £60 to £70 million given in the

Answer show a steady progressive increase.

New Investment (Yield)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to equip his Department, as recommended by the National Board of Prices and Incomes, for examining the assumptions on which the forecast of yield on new investment is based.

Mr. Marsh: In the course of this year's investment review I have discussed with the National Coal Board the assumptions on which the Board's investment decisions are based. I have also appointed a Director of Economics and two other economists whose advice on these matters will be available to me.

Electricity and Gas Boards (New Investment)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking, in respect of the electricity and gas boards, to complement the existing requirements for minimum rates of return on new investment within a requirement regarding the costs within each board's control.

Mr. Marsh: My Department has discussed this suggestion of the National Prices and Incomes Board with officials of the Gas and Electricity Councils and it will be borne in mind in the settlement of financial objectives for the period commencing 1st April, 1968. It does, however, present certain practical difficulties.

Steel Users (Requirements)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Power if he will give an assurance that steel users will continue to be free to buy their requirements in the cheapest market.

Dr. Bray: The Government have no plans for interfering with the freedom of steel users to buy in accordance with commercial considerations.

Fuel and Power Industries (Consultation)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation


to establish a suitable structure of communication within those industries within his responsibility so that all employees are encouraged to make a positive contribution to those industries.

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. The nationalisation statutes make the industries themselves responsible for setting up suitable machinery, and there is no need for further legislation in order to achieve the objectives my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the methods of consultation have been wholly unsuccessfull in a number of these industries and that perhaps the time has come to reassess the methods of consultation to ensure greater worker participation and possibly stimulate private industry?

Mr. Marsh: There has been considerable discussion on this point in a Committee elsewhere in this House. If my hon. Friend's point is, as I believe it is, that worker participation and consultation should go above and beyond the usual discussions about dirty towels and the quality of food in the cafeteria and provide for consultation in the field of activity of managerial decision, I would accept it.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the objectives which we have in mind would be best realised by the appointment of representatives of the workers to the boards of these industries?

Mr. Marsh: We have had a limited amount of assistance from the Liberal Party in Standing Committee D in these discussions. Its view is known. However, there is the generally agreed view that one cannot have representative management. People who are on a board have a loyalty to that board. They cannot represent outside bodies.

COAL

Colliery Closures

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Power (1) whether, in view of the continual decline in coal production, he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board to suspend all

planned pit closures in the national interest;
(2) whether he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board, in the public interest, to postpone planned pit closures until alternative employment opportunities are provided for ultimately redundant miners.

Mr. Marsh: The best method of ensuring sufficient supplies of coal is to concentrate mining manpower at the highly productive pits, where it is most needed. The National Coal Board can offer jobs to all able-bodied miners affected by colliery closures who are willing to transfer to other pits.

Mr. Urwin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that extensive migration from the mining industry, often precipitated by the threat of impending closures, substantially adds to the already existing social problems attached to closures? In those circumstances, does he not consider that, in order to get the coal production required and to keep these men in the industry, it would be in the national interest to retain these uneconomic pits?
On my second Question as regards pit closure, does my right hon. Friend also agree that the new industries are not keeping pace with the amount of wastage from the coal industry? Can we have greater liaison between them?

Mr. Marsh: I would accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that this programme and this method raises real social problems. It would be unfair not to recognise that. None the less, I must ask him to believe that the future of the coal mining industry, which is a good and long term one, must be based on the ability of the industry, which is a good and long-term enable it to compete with other fuels. If it does not do that, the future of coal mining is doubtful.

Mr. Varley: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the speculation that in the near future, because of falling production in this country, it is probable that we shall have to import coal from America? In view of our balance of payments position, would it not be quite disgraceful if that situation arose?

Mr. Marsh: There are no proposals for importing coal from America at present. I emphasise that the manpower


position within the coal mining industry has been transformed in the last couple of months or so.

RHODESIA

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to halt the supply of oil to Rhodesia from Portuguese territory in Africa.

Mr. Freeson: asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have, in enforcing oil sanctions against Rhodesia, for preventing oil being sent to Rhodesia from Mozambique.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As hon. Members will know, the Security Council have adopted a Resolution calling for oil sanctions. The Resolution is binding on all member States, of which of course Portugal is one.

Mr. Rose: Since most of the oil flowing into Rhodesia comes from Portuguese East Africa, would my right hon. Friend consider applying diplomatic pressure on Portugal and on the Total Oil Company which supplies the oil and, if that is not successful, would he consider sealing the frontier by taking physical action to destroy the rail link which allows for the transportation of oil into Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: This is entirely hypothetical, because the Resolution has been passed, and it would be quite wrong for the House to assume that Portugal will not abide by it. The question of what action will be taken in those circumstances is a separate one which was not covered by the Resolution passed last week.

Mr. Freeson: Is it not a fact that, in the past, until the matter was referred to the United Nations, the Portuguese authorities were undermining the conduct of the British Government's policy with regard to economic sanctions against Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a fact that a considerable flow of oil was going in from Mozambique to Rhodesia—considerably more over the greater part of the time than was going from South Africa. From my own personal knowledge in recent weeks, the Portuguese

Government were helpful in trying to create conditions in which we could get a settlement at the time of my meeting with Mr. Smith.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Rhodesia and, in particular, on his discussions with Commonwealth Governments and with the United Nations.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister what further proposals he will make to the United Nations concerning the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress towards the fulfilment of the terms of the Commonwealth Conference Communiqué on Rhodesia.

Mr. Freeson: asked the Prime Minister whether it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy that independence should not be granted to Southern Rhodesia until majority rule has been achieved.

The Prime Minister: Following the approval by the Security Council of a resolution providing for effective and selective mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government's policy is now as set out in paragraph 10 of the Communiqué which was issued at the end of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September and endorsed by a clear majority vote in this House on 8th December.
The objective of that policy is, as hitherto, to secure a settlement of the Rhodesian problem which is just and fair, and Her Majesty's Government remain willing to reach such a settlement through discussion and subsequent negotiation with a legal Government in Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: Does that reply mean that the full terms of the Communiqué are now effective, and in particular the withdrawal of all previous British offers to Rhodesia? Has the Prime Minister finally slammed the door?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It means precisely what the hon. Gentleman has said. It means that the offers


made to the illegal régime, which have been persistently rejected by the illegal régime, are no longer on offer to the illegal régime, and, despite my belief, which not all hon. Members share, that Mr. Smith wanted a settlement on the lines of the "Tiger" agreement, it is now clear that he is a prisoner of some very racialist and Fascist-minded people, and that they forbade him to enter into this agreement. [Interruption.] I know what happened on the ship as well as what happened after he went back. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the berth?"] He was in a berth of his own choosing. I know what happened when he got his orders from the racialist régime there, and I know what happened after he went back and the complete falsification of the agreement put out by them, including now Mr. Smith's statement, no doubt under orders, that he does not accept even the constitutional settlement, for example, on cross voting.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals to take this to the United Nations have the overwhelming support of the electorate of this country, and will he also note that any further action which he intends to take against the illegal régime will be strongly supported on these benches?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of what the House voted on 8th December, and of the decision of the House, and I believe that it is the decision of the country.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the fact that the Governments of both Zambia and New Zealand appear to have the gravest doubts about these mandatory sanctions, is not the Prime Minister automatically released now from the commitment into which he entered when he so unwisely signed the Commonwealth Communiqué, and as he is bound sooner or later to negotiate again, why does he not minimise the danger and do it now?

The Prime Minister: Because, as I have explained to the House, for several months they had every chance to negotiate. They had a chance on the ship, and subsequently, to settle, but they rejected that settlement and were supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite in doing so.
With regard to the second part of that question, the real difference between us is that we on this side were not prepared to break up the Commonwealth in the interests of a very small minority, including a minority now which has been successful in exerting its will over Mr. Smith himself.

Mr. Freeson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even though many of us have been rather anxious about certain compromises over Rhodesian policy which appeared to be taking place over a period of time, we welcome his categorical statement that there will be no independence for Rhodesia without majority rule, particularly bearing in mind that had that agreement been accepted on the "Tiger" there might not have been independence with majority rule for the rest of this century?

The Prime Minister: The agreement worked out on the "Tiger" involved—if it was fully honoured, and that is why we had internal and external guarantees—a trend towards majority rule at roughly the programme set out in the 1961 Agreement, if it had been honoured. It is clear that some of those who forced the rejection have no intention at all of honouring anything like the timetable set out in the 1961 Constitution, which was itself not an independence Constitution.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the Prime Minister recognise that his reply will be bitterly regretted by many outside, and will he, looking back to the success of the constitutional talks on the "Tiger", even now reopen negotiations on the method of arriving at that proposal? The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Smith had rejected the constitutional proposals. Will he give his evidence for that statement?

The Prime Minister: The agreement reached on the constitutional provisions, which Mr. Smith never doubted at all, or suggested that he doubted, included as an absolute paramount condition the retention of cross voting, which was in the 1961 Constitution, for which the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal of responsibility. We were prepared to make the very generous offer which we made about 15 reserved European seats, which were not in the 1961 Constitution, only


on condition that cross voting would continue in relation to the enlarged B roll franchise. Mr. Smith two days ago exempted from his acceptance of the constitutional settlement the cross voting provisions. He wanted all along to drop cross voting. There is no doubt that his hand has been forced. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there will be bitterness, but there are a lot of people who are very bitter also about the fact that we have been trying, and have gone to the limit in concessions to get this agreement, some would feel beyond the limit, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition himself on television appealed to Mr. Smith to accept it the day after he voted against it himself in this House. Some of the responsibility for not getting an agreement which I believe we could have got has been the encouragement given by many hon. Members opposite to the illegal régime, and this has caused some of the bitterness.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what success the Foreign Secretary has had in persuading the United Nations to share some of the burdens of the cost of maintaining the blockade against Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: That point was made in the debate. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, while we were loyally abiding by the sanctions agreed to by this House there were businessmen from other countries who were getting in and scooping up markets. This now makes the sanctions binding on all countries.

Mr. Maudling: Are the Government now firmly committed to the disastrous policy of no independence before majority rule?

The Prime Minister: I have already answered that question. I have said that we have now withdrawn all the offers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] When I was asked the question I gave the answer, "Yes", which I hope is clear to the right hon. Gentleman. He was very unclear a fortnight ago. I gave the answer, "Yes", but it was not to a question which included the word "disastrous". The question was put by my hon. Friend. It was quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman can look it up tomorrow.

Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister's memory is a little faulty. The question he was asked was about the withdrawal of previous offers. That is a different point from the one I have just raised. My question asked about the withdrawal of previous offers under paragraph 10(a) and whether the Government will not contemplate in future any proposition for independence before majority rule. It is a different point.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has studied this matter so much in recent weeks, will take the same view. The answer was given in my answer to the original question, which I hope the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) understood. I said that Her Majesty's Government's policy is now as set out in paragraph 10 of the Communiqué Strange as it may seem to the right hon. Gentleman, paragraph 10 contains subparagraph 10(a) as well as 10(b). Therefore, he has had his answer. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his broadcast after the evasive performance that night by Mr. Smith, when he appealed to Mr. Smith to accept the whole of the "Tiger" agreement although the Conservative Party, almost to a man, had voted that Smith was right to reject it.

Mr. Heath: In the circumstances which the Prime Minister has now described, can he tell the House how he proposes to bring about the settlement with Rhodesia of which he spoke in his Answer?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am hoping that we shall have a little more support from hon. Members opposite, and that we shall have no more pressure from this country on the régime to stand out for tougher terms than this House could agree to. I now say that anybody at all—anyone in Rhodesia now—on becoming the legal Government—which the Smith régime could do tomorrow if it wished—is free to negotiate with us for a return to the 1961 Constitution, with the end of sanctions and with the long-term progress towards majority rule as set out in the 1961 Constitution. This will be a legal Constitution and will involve the full restoration of self-government to Rhodesia on the basis that they have always had it. They could have had all this and independence, too, if they had


not, a fortnight ago, overwhelmed Mr. Smith and his obvious desire—which was dear to me on the ship—for a settlement, and to do this because there were men in his so-called Cabinet who were not prepared to have majority rule in their lifetime.

Mr. English: Does my right hon. Friend's original Answer mean that he has also withdrawn his undertaking never to use force against Rhodesia in any circumstances?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it means nothing of the kind. I dealt with this in questions on the night that the Rhodesian régime rejected the settlement. There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's position so far as that is concerned. If there was a change, and it became necessitated by events, the House would be informed.

Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister's disastrous decision amount to a decision to fight this out to a finish?

The Prime Minister: There were some who were prepared unconditionally to surrender at the beginning, including the right hon. Gentleman. We decided that we would do everything in our power to get an agreement and the right hon. Gentleman himself was generous enough to say so a couple of weeks ago. It was no fault of ours that there was no such agreement.

Mr. Sandys: I never said anything of the sort.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman thought that our offer was not generous enough, that confirms most of what I have been saying about him this year. It was the rejection of that agreement by the overwhelming of Mr. Smith by these men that made it clear that there was no future in negotiating with that group of people any further. They are not Rhodesia. They are not even the Rhodesian Europeans. They never had a mandate to commit illegality, which the right hon. Gentleman treats as such a trivial thing. It is now up to the Rhodesian people to return to the 1961 Constitution, with our help. We would then be prepared to join, as the right hon. Gentleman very helpfully suggested last weekend, not only in economic development, but educational development, which he and I always thought was one of the

keys to a solution. As to fighting to the bitter end, that has never been our aim. I thought I had proved that on board H.M.S. "Tiger", with the depth of the concession that we made, and the degree of trust that we were prepared to put not only in Mr. Smith but in a number of men who have been shown to be totally unworthy of that trust or of our confidence.

Mr. Tapsell: In view of his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister—who knows my views on this subject—at least confirm the suggestion put forward by the Commonwealth Secretary in the Rhodesia debate that if the illegal régime in Rhodesia were to give effect to the constitutional proposals agreed to in H.M.S. "Tiger", Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to continue to negotiate on the procedural arrangements to give effect to them?

The Prime Minister: That is what my right hon. Friend said, but the régime refused to do it, except on a prior assurance by us that they would have their independence anyway, whatever the result. This was totally unacceptable to us and to most hon. Members. They have tried a number of manoeuvres—the latest ended last night—to postpone the issue. They could have had a Commonwealth mission. They rejected it three months ago. They could have had an independence commission, and there were many other offers.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Prime Minister's most welcome statement, accepting in full the commitment contained in the Commonwealth Communiqué, mean that the same principle is now to apply to Rhodesia as was applied to all other British territories, namely, that independence is to be given only when majority rule is established?

The Prime Minister: We were prepared to make a unique exception, so far as our lifetime is concerned—I know that there was the case of South Africa, but that was before most of us were born—to the rule followed by Governments of every party and we went to extreme lengths to work out a Constitution which would have meant independence before majority rule. This was rejected and, as my right hon. Friend has said, we have carried out what the


House has endorsed, our obligation to the Commonwealth. I know that some have said that we should have broken our obligations to the Commonwealth, but we have carried them out.

REGIONAL PLANNING

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he will issue to all Departments to co-operate fully in regional planning and the preparation of contingency plans and to publicise such co-operation.

The Prime Minister: Departments already co-operate fully in regional planning, Sir. As to publicity the monthly "Progress Report" issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, which circulates widely, covers the work of the regional machinery as a whole and additional information is of course also made available locally as occasion requires.

ECONOMIC PLANNING COUNCILS

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions that whenever a Government Department acts on the advice of an economic planning council the department will announce publicly that it is acting on such advice.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that a general rule would be appropriate but I can certainly pay tribute to the value of the advice received from the councils.

Mr. Dalyell: While these councils undoubtedly have got off to a good start, is it not also important that they should be clearly seen to be taken seriously by the Government if they are to retain the services of able and busy members'?

The Prime Minister: They are being taken very seriously by the Government, and we have altered our own arrangements considerably to strengthen the Governmental representation at regional level. My hon. Friend will have seen the very fine tributes paid a few days ago as a result of one of the most important reports published by a regional council covering the future of a region.

DEPARTMENTAL STAFF

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he makes to keep himself informed of increases in Departmental staffs.

The Prime Minister: Forecasts of changes in staff to be employed during the next Financial Year are to be found in each Department's Estimate. Totals of actual numbers in post are collected and published quarterly in the Monthly Digest of Statistics and in greater detail in the Annual Abstract of Statistics. I am fully aware of major developments of policy in all Departments, and staffing changes are the result of policy decisions.

Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since his Government took office, the number of non-industrial civil servants has increased by an average of a thousand a month but that standards of entry have had to be lowered? How does he equate that with the high standard of managerial economy which he is always preaching to private industry?

The Prime Minister: As I have said repeatedly in answer to similar Questions, this must depend on policy. The Land Commission will require 2,000 staff. The House has voted on that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who regard these as non-productive civil servants never allow for the very much higher numbers of non-productive people in private industry who are engaged in land speculation. The test of being productive or non-productive must be applied to both cases if hon. Gentlemen want to be logical. In addition, we shall require 2,000 more for social security schemes, approved by this House without a Division, on earnings-related benefits, and 3,000 on non-contributory benefits and the "national assistance" live register. Hon. Gentlemen cannot vote for these things and object to having the staff for them.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the Prime Minister agree that a large part of the non-productive staffs to which he referred in private industry is necessitated by the need to act as unpaid tax collectors for the Government, and to deal with the constant complicated additional tax legislation which is being passed?

The Prime Minister: There were always a considerable number of people employed in private industry dealing with tax questions, and I would feel that the tax avoidance profession, which was very extensively employed even against Conservative Chancellors, is probably finding a little less scope for its activities today, but it is certainly the case that it has been necessary to have more people employed on taxes—against taxes which were voted by this House.

Mr. Rippon: Does the Prime Minister really believe that only 2,000 people will be needed to make the Land Commission Act work? Will he give a pledge that it will be no more than 2,000, and has he any idea of the thousands of people who will be tied down trying to make sense of it?

The Prime Minister: The best forecast available is that it will require about 2,000 staff, and this is what I said earlier. So far as land work is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his own sources of information, but he will find that there were larger numbers involved in speculation in land against the public interest, at very high cost both to the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

Mr. Grimond: Do the Prime Minister's answers mean that, in spite of the Government's avowed policy to get personnel out of the service industries, he is satisfied to see the public service going up at a rate of 1,000 a month?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and the greatest economy will be taken to see that the Civil Service does not expand more than is necessary, but when reference is made to the service industries, I must say what I have been trying to point out for the last few minutes, and now to the right hon. Gentleman, that there were larger numbers employed in spiv occupations who will have far less scope and can therefore go into productive work as a result of legislation passed by this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the week after the Christmas Adjournment?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 17TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH JANUARY and THURSDAY, 19TH JANUARY—Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill.
FRIDAY, 20TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill and of the Export Guarantees Bill.
MONDAY, 23RD JANUARY—The proposed business will be: Completion of the remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.

Mr. Heath: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that the business that he has announced makes it impossible, during the week after we come back, to have a debate on the Prayer that we have put down on the Temporary Restriction on Pay Increases Order? Will he therefore make arrangements for us to have a debate on it as soon as possible after the date on which it expires? It will not be possible to take it before the last day.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it has not yet been possible for us to get on the Notice Paper Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill, and that it is, therefore, premature to assume that the House can deal with it in three days?

Mr. Crossman: As for the first question, I think that we might take the Order on Tuesday, after the Agriculture Bill. As for the Iron and Steel Bill, we will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that? To get through the Agriculture Bill by 10 o'clock in time to take the Prayer in any reasonable time will not, I think, be possible.

Mr. Crossman: That may be so. I suggest that we consult through the usual channels. We are not trying to avoid a debate on this; we sec the necessity for it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the Motion


which I have put down to challenge a recent Ruling of Mr. Speaker with regard to a Question which I wanted to table?

[That this House regrets Mr. Speaker's ruling whereby he disallowed a question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he was aware that Private Brian Charles Gabriel, a soldier in the Welsh Guards Regiment, had been sentenced to death by a civil court in the State of Aden; and whether he had any statement to make, believing that the said ruling was not in accordance with the proper practice of the House and was an infringement of the right of Members to seek information from Ministers concerning the life and liberty of British subjects obroad.]

Does by right hon. Friend realise that the matters involved are rapidly becoming urgent? Since his announcement has not so far provided for any discussion of that Motion, can he say when such time will be provided by the Government?

Mr. Crossman: I know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The matter is now sub judice and I find it difficult to say anything about it. An appeal is now pending.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I want to know whether it is the case, in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is in any sense sub judice. How can a Motion which merely challenges Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the procedure of the House be in any conceivable or understandable sense sub judice so far as this House is concerned?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has asked a business question of the Leader of the House. If he is dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question, I cannot accept any responsibility for it.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the number of Amendments put down to the Agriculture Bill, many of them by the Government themselves? Does he really intend that the whole of the remaining stages, Report

and Third Reading, should be carried through in one day?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, we are very hopeful of achieving that.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable hardship and anxiety caused to my constituents by the delay in making a statement about the siting of the new town in North Bucks? This has been promised by the Ministers concerned as being imminent for weeks and I should be grateful if a statement could be made on their behalf now or before the House rises.

Mr. Crossman: This hardly relates to the business for the week after the Recess.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the business today includes the Scottish General Grant (Increase) Order, although he said that it would not, in answer to a question when business for this week was announced? Will he kindly take more trouble in providing information to the House about Scottish business? Can he tell us, also, when the Scottish Rate Support Grant Order will be discussed?

Mr. Crossman: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I unintentionally misled him on the last occasion. He asked whether the Scottish Rate Support Grant Order would be considered with the English Order and I quite correctly said that it would come along later. However, I see that he also referred to the Scottish General Grant (Increase) Order, and, as the House can see, that is on the Order Paper for today.

Mr. Blenkinsop: When may we have a debate on the shipbuilding industry and the implementation of the Geddes Report, which is eagerly awaited?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of that and it is something which we shall certainly consider after the Recess.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary recently made an important statement about changes of policy in civil defence? Will he, early in the coming year, provide an opportunity for discussion in Government time—as I feel it should be—of civil defence and, indeed, of home defence generally?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot give any assurance on this. I am aware that my right hon. Friend made an important statement and I am certainly willing to measure the degree of interest in the House. However, there is no immediate prospect of giving Government time to discuss civil defence.

Mr. Rowland: Would my right hon. Friend promise an early debate on today's excellent White Paper on Broadcasting, in addition to the Second Reading of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot promise that. The House will only just have received the White Paper and I think that we ought to study it over the Recess and then consider what to do about it. My hon. Friend is right to say that the occasion will come for a discussion on broadcasting on the Second Reading of the Bill he mentioned.

Mr. Rippon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is happening to the Land Commission Bill? Is it not a fact that it is in such a state of shambles that the Government have now decided to postpone the date on which it will come into operation? Will he explain to the Prime Minister that the people who are driven nearly demented by it are the professional men and not the speculators—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even Front Benchers must ask business questions.

Mr. Crossman: Confining myself to the business question, I see no reason to think that our plans will be upset for considering any Amendments which the Lords may make to the Bill, or that there will be any difficulty in dealing with them.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend say what his plans are for a general debate on the Press?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I hope, be making a statement in the near future about one aspect of the problem of the Press. As for a general debate, I am prepared to consider that after the Recess, since, the more I reflect on it, the more serious I think the situation now is, not only for that paper but for

a number of others. This is a matter of vital interest to everybody who believes in freedom.

Mr. Lubbock: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about sitting on Monday and Wednesday mornings during the week that we reassemble. Can he tell the House when this will be implemented?

Mr. Crossman: It is already laid down in the Resolution which we debated that the sittings should start on 1st February.

Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend give consideration to the need for an early debate on the annual report and accounts of the Bank of England? May this be combined with a discussion of the rôle of the Treasury in economic policy-making in Government circles?

Mr. Crossman: I have already written to my hon. Friend about his request and I think that, when he has read my letter, he will see that the debate might be very arid on the particular report.

Mr. Dickens: Oh, no.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In connection with the White Paper on Broadcasting, which was issued, I understand, at 11.30 this morning, would the right hon. Gentleman say why we are not to have a statement in the House of Commons on this issue? Is not this the normal practice in matters of this kind?

Mr. Crossman: I am always grateful to my right hon. Friends who spare us long Statements at the end of Question Time. It is up to Ministers to decide whether a Statement is necessary or not when a White Paper is published.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among many of our larger local authorities, trade unions and large sections of the public about the White Paper on Transport? I have mentioned this already. Can he say when we will have a debate on the White Paper?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there is great interest in this. We will certainly discuss, through the usual channels, the possibility of a debate.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that countless thousands of


animal lovers in the country are anxious for legislation along the lines of the Brambell Report? When does he hope to make a statement?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the interest in this subject and my right hon. Friend certainly has it on his list. However, I cannot give any date for a statement on this matter.

Dr. David Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment in many constituencies at the failure to table before Christmas legislation for leasehold enfranchisement? Will he assure us that this will come up soon after Christmas?

Mr. Crossman: I have already said that the Leasehold Reform Bill is being prepared and will come out after Christmas.

Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, last night, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources informed the Press that he would today make a statement about the date of the first appointed day under the Land Commission Bill, and that it now appears that only a Written Answer will be given to a Written Question in this respect? Since this is such an important matter, affecting every householder in the country, would the Leader of the House not agree that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by proper Ministerial Statement? Will he give that opportunity to the Minister?

Mr. Crossman: It is the answer to the Question, although a Written Answer. This is a not abnormal practice. Hon. Members will find in a few hours that the reply is not sensational and will give the precise answer that the hon. Member wants.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of a debate on the very important issues raised by the new evidence on the Zinoviev letter, which has only just come to light?

Mr. Crossman: The Zinoviev letter ought perhaps now to be added to the Suez inquiry and other subjects on which

more light may be shed. We must wait and see. It may be possible to have a debate on the matter.

SINGAPORE (GIFT OF A BOOKCASE)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On 7th November, this House gave leave of absence to five of its Members to present, on its behalf, a bookcase containing Parliamentary and constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore.
The delegation consisted of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and myself. We were accompanied by Mr. A. C. Marples, the Clerk of Committees of this House.
It is my pleasant duty to report that our mission has been accomplished. The Singapore Parliament was not sitting at the time of our visit and the presentation took place at an informal but very well-attended meeting of Members and guests in the Library at Parliament House where the gift had been installed. Since our return, Parliament has met and a Resolution of thanks has been agreed to in terms which I shall hand to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that, in accordance with precedent, you will direct that this Resolution shall be entered in the Journal of this House.
So much for the formal aspect of the duty entrusted to us. But I know that all my colleagues in the delegation will want me to tell the House how warmly we, their representatives, were welcomed in Singapore. Everywhere we went we were received with great kindness and hospitality. We had opportunities to meet the President, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and many other members of the Government and of Parliament. We were able to appreciate the energy with which the problems of industrial development, housing and education are being tackled. We spent a most interesting day with our Forces in Singapore. Despite the short time at our disposal, we were able, by the use of helicopters, to see something of the work


of all three Services and we were very impressed by what we saw. We are grateful to all who helped to make our stay in Singapore so enjoyable and especially to the Speaker, who did so much to help us.
Mr. Speaker, the gift we presented on behalf of this House is a token of a very real friendship. To have been a member of the delegation was an unforgettable experience and we were left in no doubt about the close ties that exist between this country and Singapore and the value that is attached to the British presence there.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) for his report. I believe in the importance of missions such as the one on which he has just reported and I am sure that the House would want me to thank him and his colleagues for carrying out the mission entrusted to them.
I will see that the Resolution which he has brought to the House will be entered in the Journal of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Following is the Resolution:

Resolved,
That this House expresses its warm appreciation of the generous gift of a bookcase and books which it received on the 16th November, 1966, from a delegation of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a token of friendship and good will on the part of the House of Commons and people of the United Kingdom towards the Parliament and people of Singapore to commemorate the attainment by Singapore of independence within the Commonwealth.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to yesterday's HANSARD where,

at cols. 998–9, you said that you would hear the Paymaster-General's point of order after Questions. That, in fact, is what happened, and the ensuing points of order were connected with those appearing at cols. 1001–2; it was one continuous series of questions. May I ask you to see that this matter is put right in the record?

Mr. Speaker: The correction will be made in the Bound Volume of HANSARD. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member.

BILL PRESENTED

WEST INDIES

Bill to confer on certain West Indian territories a new status of association with the United Kingdom, and to enable that status to be terminated at any time; to make provision for other matters in connection with, or consequential upon, the creation or termination of that status or other constitutional changes which may occur in relation to any of those territories; to make further provision as to grants under the Overseas Aid Act 1966; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; presented by Mr. Frederick Lee; supported by Mr. Herbert Bowden, Mr. Richard Crossman, The Attorney-General, and Mr. John Stone-house; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock and, at Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn until Tuesday, 17th January.—[The Prime Minister.]

3.54 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The period of the Adjournment is in accordance with precedent and, in the ordinary way, would pass perhaps without too much comment. But the complacency with which the House can regard any period of Recess must, in my submission, depend on the degree to which a Government can be depended upon to act during the period of Parliamentary Recess with strict constitutional propriety and not in any way to trespass on the jurisdiction of Parliament.
I am bound to say that the record of the present Government to date does not build up in me any confidence or degree of comfort in the House going into Recess for what would ordinarily be a period acceptable to the House. They have, in a variety of ways, shown a disregard of constitutional propriety and a tendency to act with disrespect to Parliament, not giving to Parliament the jurisdiction and consideration which is its due.
I do not want to detain the House with a catalogue of examples, but there are a number which come readily to mind. There is, for example, the matter of the Parliamentary Commissioner, which led to the Government being severely rebuked for acting in anticipation of Parliament's approval of their action and in breach of the most elementary and basic constitutional doctrines which have animated this House for many generations.
Another example of even wider importance, and one to which I ventured to draw attention in an earlier debate this autumn, is in the Government's attitude to the so-called pay freeze and the period of severe restraint. In this context, the Government have shown themselves obdurately determined to proceed by way of Government exhortation and, to some extent, Government intimidation, rather than by the processes of Statute law duly passed by this House.
Another example is their insistence of bringing into operation the Land Com-

mission without adequate Parliamentary scrutiny and proper preparation. This action is a matter which will be repented of hereafter, just as certainly and as deeply as the unwise development charge provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, under the Attlee Administration.
The final matter to which I refer—and the one that has mainly caused me to detain the House today—is in regard to the reference of the Rhodesian case to the United Nations. I argued in the debate a short while ago—and I do not want to repeat the arguments I then adduced—that this was a reference made outside the contemplation of Chapter 7 of the Charter. I argued then—and the argument has not so far been answered—that the Government should not have made that reference having regard to the fact that the matter was within the sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction of this country and that, therefore, under Article 2(7) of the Charter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member must, in arguing the merits of his case, link these points to the reason why he believes that we should or should not adjourn until mid-January.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was about to do so, Mr. Speaker. The only reason why I am being somewhat longer in putting my case than I would otherwise be is because I was, unfortunately, unable to catch your eye a little earlier when I was seeking to put a question to the Prime Minister, which might have clarified the point I am seeking to make. I am, as always, conscious of the passage of time and I will certainly make my point as concisely as I can.
I merely said by way of background explanation that that is the constitutional position as I see it about this reference to the United Nations. It was made without proper deliberation by Parliament when the initial determination was made in the United Nations last April, at the request of this Government, to the effect that a situation existed which constituted a threat to the peace. Now we have the situation that die machinery of sanctions has started through the United Nations.
I want to ask the Government to consider this. If we are to go into Recess for nearly four weeks during the initial


very important four weeks of the sanctions procedure, what steps have the Government in mind to keep the House and the country informed about the implementation of the collective mandatory sanctions'? As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, the Charter is silent about the machinery for the enforcement of economic sanctions, and I want to ask the Government whether they will make use of the Recess—they will have nearly four weeks—to prepare a White Paper saying what is the machinery which exists within the United Nations for the enforcement of sanctions by individual member nations.
I want to know whether they will also indicate in the White Paper which countries will require domestic legislation before they will be in a position to take any action over the sanctions. Will the Government then, having given us this basic knowledge, consider what steps they should take to give the House, and the country, a running commentary, as it were, on the progress of this matter so that we may see what is happening, and how far the implementation of the sanctions resolution by member nations marches pari passu with what is being done in this country. This is a matter of considerable constitutional and political importance. It is also of economic importance, as was brought out in the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) about the sharing of the load in this respect.
For all of these reasons, I feel less well disposed to a Recess of nearly four weeks than I would ordinarily, having regard to the fact that it is a period which is not of itself unduly protracted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with the specific point that I have made about keeping the country informed by White Paper, or as may be convenient, on the progress of the implementation of sanctions and the machinery therefor; and, secondly, that he will give some reassurance to the House that the Government propose to mend their ways about the observance of constitutional niceties and behave in a more democratic, constitutional and Parliamentary manner in future.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The House is being asked to agree to a

Motion that we adjourn until 17th January. This is a very important decision to take and it must be given the greatest consideration by all Members, particularly in view of the situation in Vietnam. Before I could give my support to this Motion, I, and many other hon. Members on this side, would like assurances from the Government that will carry out their declared policy over the bringing to a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam situation.
I would draw the attention of the House to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he spoke at the Labour Party conference earlier this year. He made the point that the answer to the Vietnam problem was the calling of a conference and that the first step should be that the bombing of North Vietnam by the United States and South Vietnamese aircraft should cease, and a pledge should be given that bombing would not be resumed unless and until the conference has met and failed, and the war is restarted.
The point is that the bombing of North Vietnam by the Americans continues, yet here we are contemplating going into recess when the danger exists of an eruption and escalation of this war into an even more dangerous situation. We are bound to ask the Government precisely what they are doing to bring about the conference which the Foreign Secretary said was necessary early this year. We know that the Americans have said that they are prepared to negotiate and have approached U Thant about peaceful negotiations, but U Thant has made it a condition that the bombing of North Vietnam should cease.
On the one hand, we have the United States talking in terms of peaceful settlement and stepping up the bombing of North Vietnam and Hanoi at the same time. It is quite clear that our Government have a responsibility, over their declared policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting slightly into the merits of the case. He must link it to arguments as to whether we should adjourn until mid-January.

Mr. Heffer: I accept that, Sir. What I am saying is that I want an assurance from our Government that they will carry out their declared policy about this matter


before I could vote for this Motion. That is why I want to know what the Government intend to do about the resolution carried at the Labour Party conference, composite Resolution No. 35, which made this point:
This Conference asks Her Majesty's Government to dissociate itself entirely from the present U.S. policy in Vietnam. It is alarmed by the prospect of further escalation.
Hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, are entitled to ask the Government—I would need to have an answer to this before I vote for any adjournment until 17th January—what we are doing to put pressure on the United States to bring about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam. It is a long time until 17th January and it is clear that between now and then the war in Vietnam can escalate even further. The Americans now have 327,000 troops in Vietnam, and the number is growing all the time. What pressure is being brought by Her Majesty's Government upon the American Government about this resolution?

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I wish to put a point which will strengthen the case he is making. Is my hon. Friend aware of a new feature which makes the situation even worse? An American visitor to our country recently told us that in Redwood City, California, a chemical factory has just been awarded a contract by the United States Government for napalm equal in weight to 3 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam. This is a question of genocide and would certainly justify the case my hon. Friend is making, particularly as we have condemned—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a long intervention, suspiciously like a speech.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I confess that I was not aware of what he has told us, but it horrifies me a great deal. This is undoubtedly another reason why, before we support the Motion, we are entitled to ask the Government precisely what they are doing to bring about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam. This is the burden of my point.
We have had a very clear statement from the Government that they are endeavouring to bring about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam. A resolution has been passed by the Labour Party conference. I was horrified yesterday by the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which seemed to go back on the original statements of the Government protesting at the bombing of Hanoi by the Americans. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the points made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary were not the Goverment's policy. We want a further assurance from the Government that their policy has not altered and that we are opposed to the American policy of bombing Hanoi and Haiphong and wish to bring about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam at the earliest possible moment.
The whole world is crying out for peace in Vietnam. Last weekend I was at the Western European Union where delegates from various countries and various political parties in Europe unanimously passed a resolution calling for peace in Vietnam. Among them were the Christian Democrats of Western Germany, the Gaullists of France, the Labour Party in Britain and many others throughout Europe. The decision was unanimous. It included support by the Pope's brother, who is a delegate to the Western European Union from one of the Italian parties. The Western European Union is asking its constituent Governments what they propose to do about carrying out the resolution passed at the W.E.U.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide of the Motion. He must link his remarks to reasons why we should not adjourn.

Mr. Heffer: I am just about to do that, Mr. Speaker.
Before I vote for this Motion, I want to know what the Government intend to do about the resolution passed at the W.E.U., and whether they propose to carry it out and do something positive along the lines which they themselves have indicated.
Will the Government tell the United States Government, as they have done in the past, that they oppose most strongly


the continued bombing of North Vietnam, which will not help to bring peace in Vietnam but will have the opposite result? I ask my right hon. Friend to give us an assurance that the Government, during the Recess, will do everything possible to bring pressure on the United States Government to bring about quick and early settlement of the Vietnam problem. Otherwise, I could not bring myself to support the Motion.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): It is clear from the number of Members on both sides of the House who rose to speak that there is a general lack of sufficient confidence in the Government to cause the House to be willing to go away and leave the country to their tender mercies even for the comparatively limited period proposed. I suppose the feeling is that when the Parliamentary cat is away the mice on the Treasury Bench will play, and most of us have found—[Interruption] During the last two years, I agree—that these are mischievous rodents.
There is the Government's unwillingness—it lies behind this Motion—to make statements on important matters to the House. They want to send us away so that they can, with impunity, make their statements with all the favourable apparatus of public relations officers, and the like, and not be subject to the immediate criticism which they are certain to meet in the House.
We have had examples of that today. We were told by the Leader of the House that in the near future the President of the Board of Trade will make a most important statement on the future of one aspect of the Press. I took him to mean the future of The Times. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that statement will be made tomorrow? If not, there are some of us who feel that the House should remain sitting so as to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make a statement on the future and life of probably the greatest newspaper in the world. A Government decision on this matter should be announced in Parliament, where is can be challenged at once.
Perhaps the Leader of the House—I do not wish to misjudge him; I see his P.P.S. is already in motion—can answer

that question. If he can say that the statement will be made tomorrow, one—but I am afraid only one—of my objections to the Motion will be immediately dissipated.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I am always willing to oblige the right hon. Gentleman. I shall try to get the requisite information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his habitual courtesy. I hope that I shall not try him further if I seek elucidation on one or two other matters relating to the Motion.
Many of us expected that today, instead of merely the publication of a White Paper, we should have had a statement on the Government's proposals for the future of broadcasting. If we have a Recess for four weeks, there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to challenge the Government on a matter in which our postbags show very large numbers of our constituents are intensely interested. [Interruption.] Perhaps the constituents of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) are less articulate and intelligent than mine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) so pertinently points out, that accounts for the hon. Gentleman's return to the House.
My constituents are interested in this matter. It is quite wrong that on a matter in which millions of our fellow countrymen are intensely interested the Government should publish a White Paper on Broadcasting and send us away for four weeks so that opportunities of immediate challenge and even elucidatory questions are denied us. Why has not a statement been made on that matter?
We do not know how many more dangerous criminals will be allowed to escape from goal under the Home Secretary's administration during the Recess, or whether the policy of allowing extremely dangerous men out on working parties will be placidly continued, because they have, to use the Home Secretary's word, "matured", as if they were port. We do not know whether this disastrous policy will be continued, nor, if the House is not sitting, shall we have the right to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on


this aspect. Only yesterday we had another case, and we do not know how many more of these people will liberate themselves during this period without let or hindrance.
Again, there is the extraordinary mess in which at present the whole situation with regard to the disposal of land is being left. We were led to believe—and many of us could recognise the normal signs of Ministerial guidance; after all, we have used it ourselves—that we were to be given a statement today by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. There has been little time—and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's airy remark that he discourages his colleagues might have had force—but we should be told whether the appointed day of 1st March is to continue, although the Bill is still in another place and there is no reason to know whether or not it will be law by that date.
Meanwhile, large numbers of professional men do not know what advice to give to their clients. Meanwhile, numbers of people do not know whether or not they can dispose of land with impunity. Of all people, the right hon. Gentleman—a former Minister of Housing and Local Government, even though I must point out that he was the Minister under whom housing declined, but even with that limitation—should know how unwise it is to leave uncertainty in this matter. The Minister of Land and Natural Resources might be allowed to tell us—assuming that he is still in occupation of his office, and even that is in question—what the position is and, perhaps, that he has postponed the appointed day so that ordinary land transactions can go forward, at least, at a pace to sustain the rate of the housing programme which the Government contemplate.
Again, today, for the "umpteenth" time, we have not had an assurance by the Colonial Secretary that he will not hand over the people of Gibraltar, without their consent, to any foreign rule. If we were able to continue to sit in the House we would be able to continue to press him, as some of us care a great deal about Gibraltar.
I give a great deal of weight to the anxiety of hon. Members below the gangway opposite over the highly dangerous situation in Vietnam. I agree with them

about the seriousness of that position, although our approaches are exactly opposite. My alarm is that, while we are away, the Government may give us another sample of their weakness in collaboration with the United States as they did when the Prime Minister made that unhappy statement criticising the Americans a few months ago.
I am one of those who believe that the future peace of the world depends on the Anglo-American Alliance. I am not sure that I trust the Government, without Parliamentary criticism, to maintain that position during these next weeks. Though my views are exactly opposed to those of hon. Members opposite, we are united in the view that this is a delicate situation, and one that it is dangerous to leave to the unsupervised activities of Her Majesty's Government—

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to this Motion, is there any limit to where the Americans can go in Vietnam; any point at which the right hon. Members would say to the Americans, "So far, and no further"? Or does he believe in unconditional support of the American forces?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting at the merits of the issue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That fascinating discussion must await another occasion, but I think that I can rely on the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite to find an occasion. Of course, if we were to succeed in defeating this Motion, we could have a debate on the subject on Thursday, when I should be happy to give my views on the subject, and give reasons for the view some of us hold about the future peace of the world. This is a delicate and dangerous situation, and we want a clear assurance from the Government on how they propose to handle it during these four weeks. If the Motion is carried, they will be immune from Parliamentary criticism during those weeks.
As the House knows, there are a great many more issues of great difficulty and great delicacy. Obviously, the House, and those who serve it, want and look forward to a period of relaxation. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a pleasure for you to see us not quite so consistently during the next few weeks,


though we all want—[Interruption.] I am not indulging in any hypocrisy about it—to go away for the festive season with a good conscience. We would do that if we had a clear assurance from the Government that the dangerous and delicate matters they will be handling during the next few weeks will be handled in a way which the House would approve. That, I think, is the only responsible way in which the House can adjourn for these weeks.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not oppose the Motion. It is the Motion we all expected, and I do not know that anyone would vote against it except with his tongue in his cheek and for other purposes. But it has been the custom for hon. Members to use such Motions to raise matters in which they are in difference from the Government, or in which they have anxieties on which they think that the Government can give assurances that will, at any rate, tide them over the intervening period and relieve their anxieties. I have taken part in such debates myself, and I have the utmost sympathy and agreement with the points raised already by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
I want to raise a much narrower question, but one that I hope hon. Members think important. I hope that they will forgive me if I take just a few minutes—I do not propose to be long—in being a little technical about it. I make it clear at once that I do not have in mind or wish to refer to any particular case.
We have a number of British subjects serving at the moment in Aden in the Armed Forces. I am not aware of their exact numbers, but the figure of 7,000 or 8,000 is probably near the mark. What I am anxious about is to whom are those soldiers responsible. Under what law? Answerable to what courts? The position is very doubtful, and I want for two or three minutes—I promise not to be longer—to draw attention of right hon. and hon. Members, and particularly of my right hon. Friends, to the situation as it is disclosed by documents for which we are responsible.
Aden was at one time a Crown Colony. When it was a Crown Colony, there was no doubt about the legal position, and

if it were a Crown Colony today I would not be raising the questions I now raise. Aden is no longer a Crown Colony. It is now a foreign State. By an Agreement made recently between this country and the Federation of South Arabia, Aden ceased to be a Crown Colony and became, instead, one of those federated States.
The Agreement makes it perfectly clear that nevertheless, British sovereignty was preserved by the Agreement under which Aden became one of the Federated States of South Arabia. It still remains British territory. Our sovereign rights and duties presumably still remain. I am not aware of any jurisdiction under which any officer of ours could create courts administering laws which did not exist while it was a Crown Colony and which do not exist in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of the case that he is troubled about. He must argue its urgency and its linking with the Motion that we adjourn to mid-January.

Mr. Silverman: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am bound to go into a little detail—I shall be very careful not to be too long—to make my point clear. We have 7,000 British subjects there—young soldiers, some of them very young soldiers.
I want to quote one paragraph from the Agreement to which this country was a party and under which Aden became one of the Federated States of South Arabia. It says this:
Save as may be otherwise agreed between the United Kingdom and the Federation in any particular case or class of case exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all proceedings against members of such Forces and the personnel mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of Section 4 of this Annex"—
which is the relevant one—
shall be exercised by Courts and authorities established or recognised by the United Kingdom for this purpose".
What I want my right hon. Friends to tell me, if they can—I think that the House ought to be told something about it before we go away for the Christmas holidays—is this. First, is there any agreement to the contrary? If so, what is it? Secondly, if there is no agreement to the contrary, what courts do we recognise or have we established in Aden


since April of this year when Aden became an Arabian State? Thirdly, if we have established or recognised any courts in the State of Aden, what law do they apply? If they exercise any criminal jurisdiction, what sanctions are at their disposal? Is there a right of appeal? If there is, is there a right of appeal to any British court? If not, then to what court? What jurisdiction does any such court of appeal exercise?
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not think that these are irrelevant questions to ask about 7,000 young soldiers whom we export without asking them. Surely the men themselves are entitled to know to what law they are answerable? If they were tried by a British court, there would be no difficulty. If they were tried by a court-martial, this would be a British court; and a British court-martial would be bound by the law of this country, just as much in a Colony as it would be here. But this is no longer a Colony.
Yesterday, a statement was made with regard to certain pending investigations against a number of soldiers in Aden. A suggestion was made that they may be tried by a court-martial. Is that quite certain? Or could they be tried by a civil court in Aden; and, if so, what civil court in Aden? And what law would be applied in that civil court? What risks are they running if they do not behave themselves? Surely they are entitled to know this. It is one of the basic principles of our law that people are presumed to know the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse for offences against it. Could such a principle be invoked in cases where ignorance of the law is inevitable, because nobody has ever told anybody, not even the House of Commons itself, what the law is.
If we are continuing this policy of sending a British military presence east of Suez or west of Suez or north of Suez or south of Suez, surely we ought to have some guide to ensure that the soldiers that we send there are properly protected by ordinary British principles in British courts exercised by British officials and that we do not hand them over to some vague, ambiguous, undefined, court in a foreign country, or foreign country even for a limited purpose—a court which we have established or recognised under

some power which is outside the ordinary laws of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to labour the point in any way. I think that I have said enough to indicate that this is an important question. It is not my fault that I could not ask questions about it earlier. I sought to do so, but, for reasons that everybody knows, I was not allowed to ask the questions before and I am asking them now.
None of these questions has anything to do with the Royal Prerogative. None of these questions has anything to do with the particular penalty. None of these questions has anything to do with any particular case. All these things are things which the House of Commons ought to want to know. I hope that the Government, before asking us to take a final decision on the Motion, will give us some information to satisfy us that we are not sending young soldiers into foreign fields and subject to foreign law without any control or any right in any Member of the House of Commons to ask a question about it before, or after, or at any time.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: We are asked to agree
That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn until Tuesday 17th January.
My point about the Motion arises from the fact that between those dates comes 1st January, from which time onwards a central feature of the Government's economic policy will be the criterion of severe restraint. It is very undesirable—I endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith) in this context—that the House should leave the Government in the present state of, as it were, suspended economic animation, because we know very little about the supposed criterion of severe restraint.
I think that it is very important not only that the nation should know, but also that the House should be told. Our experience hitherto suggests that these are, in fact, two different propositions, because, although the Government show a procilivity to consult those whom they regard as their friends among the elite of the C.B.I., the T.U.C., and various bodies like the National Economic Development Council, it is almost as a


matter of privilege and condescension that back benchers are told what are the thoughts so privy to the Government's policy.
Our thinking has been concentrated on this point with the events of the last two or three days concerning the issue of lower-paid workers. This arises from the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of the settlement of the Agricultural Wages Council. That has not yet been the subject of any discussion in the House, because no opportunity has existed. Are we to suppose that it is self-evident that agricultural workers do not come under the consideration of the lower-paid? Is it the Government's proposition that the record of productivity in agriculture is so self-evidently deficient that agricultural workers cannot have their claim considered to be covered by that criterion?
Those are precisely the issues that should be elaborated now, before 1st January, not only so that those employed in the industry may feel that they are receiving something like justice, but so that all those engaged in negotiations on incomes can build up some kind of guidelines from Government decisions of this character.
I regard the reference of the Agricultural Wages Council award to the National Board for Prices and Incomes with a great deal of suspicion, which is heightened by the Government's apparent reluctance to elaborate on exactly what thoughts and issues prompted them to made such a decision. We know that 80 per cent. of those employed in agriculture are presumed to receive earnings about the minimum rates set by the Board. The Government may feel that that is a relevant factor, and, if so, the House should be told before 1st January.
As the only opportunity seems to lie in the answer to this debate, I hope that I shall not ask in vain, not least because the Leader of the House, who is to answer, is a farmer, and, therefore, has a direct interest in the agricultural prosperity of this country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend is a hobby farmer. He lives on a farm.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)

says that his right hon. Friend is a hobby farmer. I cannot entirely endorse his ungenerous comments, and I must ask him not to try to embroil me in that kind of controversy with his right hon. Friend.
My point is of a much more general application. After all, it was the Leader of the House who told us that the Government's economic measures were carefully calculated. If they are to be, and seen to he, carefully calculated, we must have a great deal more evidence of the care and calculation than we have hitherto been treated to, particularly in respect of the treatment of agricultural workers in the reference of the Agricultural Wages Council's decision to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
My point may seem narrow, but it will not be considered narrow by those involved in agriculture and everyone else who has to deliberate on and conclude the fixing of incomes. I have dealt with the one point of how one defines the lower-paid. But my points could be made with equal, if not more, force when seeking to interpret how one decides whether productivity justifies the fixing of a certain income.
Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite also wish to contribute to the debate, and I therefore conclude my remarks. But I very much hope that the Leader of the House will seek to satisfy me on this.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I wish to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in that I feel that as we go into recess this Christmas the world is beset with many serious international problems in Europe, Gibraltar and Rhodesia, but that none is as serious as the problem that faces the world in the war that continues and escalates in Vietnam.
Because of that and the very unsatisfactory replies my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave at Question Time yesterday on the extension of the bombing of North Vietnam, particularly the bombing of Hanoi, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to clarify the position before we go into recess.
At present, many conflicting reports are coming out of Vietnam, and there are


also conflicting reports on the American position. We now know that there are 378,000 American troops in South Vietnam, and we know that there was bombing of Hanoi. How great the bombing was, and how near the centre of the city, we are not absolutely clear, but it is clear that the population centre of Hanoi has been seriously bombed.

Mr. Crossman: No.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend says, "No". But I would like him to explain exactly what has been bombed, and what information he has from the British representatives in Hanoi.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought that he said that the centre of the city had been bombed. Perhaps I misheard him.

Mr. Orme: I said, "the population centre". I said I did not know how near the bombing was to the centre of the city. We might argue about a mile or two, but I think that it is generally agreed that it was within a five or six mile radius.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Through my hon. Friend, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the bombing of the suburbs of a city is not as damaging as bombing the centre?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. Mr. Orme.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to help my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr).
Because of the serious situation, the British Government's attitude should be made crystal clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on record as saying that the Government dissociate themselves from the bombing of the population centres of Haiphong and Hanoi, and the Labour Party conference is on record as being against the extension of the bombing into North Vietnam. While I think that all of us welcomed the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and wished him success in his endeavours to reach a peaceful settlement in Vietnam, we were greatly distressed at his replies in the House yesterday, and we told him so then.
Another point I wish to raise relates to the conflicting statements coming out of the United States at the moment. I think that all of us will be pleased with the statement—

Mr. Leslie Hale: When my hon. Friend says "all of us", does he include me? He said "all of us" twice, and I wish he would make it clear who "all of us" are.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) misinterprets the point I am trying to make. I assume that all of us want to see a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent me. He included all of us in welcoming various decisions and statements that have been made and spoke of the general approval of all hon. Members on this side of the House of certain things that have happened. I hope that he will understand that I am in complete agreement with the point he is making, which is extremely important, but "all of us" commits too much. I hope that he will go on to say that there is now a possible threat from the American Senate of the bombing of British ships during the Recess.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has, quite rightly, challenged the point I was making. I was trying to infer that, while not endorsing the policy that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might be following—and I have been highly critical of this aspect of Government policy—we would at least wish the Government well if they were seriously considering getting a settlement of the war. I am not really interested in who helps to achieve it, so long as it is achieved. That is the only point I make.
I want to deal, also, with the conflicting statements that are coming from the United States. My hon. Friend referred to the statement that ships which are servicing Haiphong at the moment might be bombed. I would put on a different and higher plane the statement made by Senator Mansfield, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, calling for an extension of the truce to 47 days so that the bombing might cease over that period and a real attempt might be made to reach a successful settlement.
In addition, I think that my hon. Friends would say that we hope that the statement—and perhaps what I have said about the Foreign Secretary might be put in the same context—that Mr. Goldberg made yesterday to U Thant was made with sincerity and from a genuine desire to obtain peace in Vietnam, because surely we all hope that U Thant can be in a position to negotiate something that he has long desired to negotiate—a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he think that there is any connection between the peace talks which we hope will develop and the bombing of Hanoi because, being suspicious-minded, it would appear to some of us that the bombing of Hanoi is deliberately intended to "kybosh" the possibilities of a peaceful settlement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to canvass this point in any detail. Hon. Members must address themselves to the question of whether we should adjourn until 17th January.

Mr. Orme: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I can link that point to the question of the Adjournment.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on this issue and I conclude with one final appeal. Certain moves have been made—Mr. Goldberg's approach to U Thant and Senator Mansfield's appeal for a 47-day truce—but none of these things can be successful while the bombing is extended and escalated into North Vietnam. This is where the British Government, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, have some responsibility to say to the United States that we will not achieve a peaceful settlement if bombing of Hanoi or Haiphong and other population centres is extended.
I implore the Government to say to the United States, during the Recess, that if we wish to achieve a peaceful settlement of the war, the first thing that must happen is the cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam. This must be made clear and categoric. From that could come other measures which could bring about a peaceful settlement. I ask the Government to concentrate on this position.
There are all sorts of rumours about the United States wanting British troops to support American troops in Vietnam and there are conflicting reports that they want a peaceful settlement. I believe that the majority of our people, both in this House and outside, want to see a peaceful settlement and not a further escalation of the war. Let us take the first step by asking that the bombing cease, that peaceful negotiations start and that we have implementation of the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
I urge the Government to implement this policy during the Recess.

4.55 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: There are two quite different reasons why the House should not adjourn tomorrow although they are wholly unconnected. The first directly affects the position of the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House. We have not had an opportunity to debate the extension of Parliamentary privilege which has resulted from the decision taken by the Prime Minister just over two years ago to protect M.P.s and peers from the possibility of the tapping of their telephones on the authority of the Home Secretary.
I do not think that anyone in the House was very impressed by the Prime Minister's argument that this was not an extension of Parliamentary privilege, because, clearly, it must have been. It is only the fact that I have the letters "M.P." after my name which has resulted in this extension of privilege to me. I think that the House will agree with the Prime Minister that it is not for him, as he said, in reply to a Question I put to him last week, either to increase or decrease Parliamentary privilege. He has shown considerable reluctance to pursue this matter further and his replies to Questions have been unsatisfactory.
Members of Parliament and peers have not asked for this privilege. In my opinion, they do not deserve it and I believe that a great many hon. Members on both sides will agree with that. They do not want to be above the law in this respect. The unanimous recommendations of the all-party Committee of Privy Councillors which reported in 1957 made it clear that, excepting insofar as the very narrow confines of existing Parliamentary privilege are concerned, when it comes to


telephone conversations hon. Members should not be above the law in this very important respect.
I do not want to make a long speech about this important question now, which is a matter for Parliament as a whole. I am sorry that the Prime Minister apparently did not consult anyone, apart from the Paymaster-General, as far as I know—he has told us that he consulted him—before making this decision in secret more than two years ago without announcing it to the House. The decision he made then was wrong and unjustified. I believe that this is a non-party House of Commons matter, about which there must be a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. The question should be debated and a full explanation given to the House by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Will Griffiths: My only reason for interrupting is that I would not like the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech on the assumption that both sides of the House agree with him that telephone tapping of M.P.s' telephones is desirable. I certainly do not agree.

Sir T. Beamish: I am glad to hear it. The hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on the matter. I have a shrewd suspicion, however, that there must be hon. and right hon. Members on both sides who regard the Prime Minister's decision as wrong and unjustified and a clear extension of Parliamentary privilege. I hope I am right in saying that this is not a party matter but a House of Commons matter, but I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me and that he may not be alone in that.
I want to turn now to the other question I wish to raise. It arises from the unhappy Rhodesian situation. Many of us wanted to speak in the two-day Rhodesia debate and many were disappointed, including myself, although that is something I have become used to after a number of years in this place. I shall not make the speech now that I was going to make then, but there are two aspects of the Rhodesian question which I wish to raise now.
The first is my anxiety, which I believe to be very widely shared in the country and throughout the Conservative Party,

that the imposition of mandatory sanctions by the United Nations may well have dangerous side effects and escalate beyond this country's control. The fact that the Government are still maintaining the fiction that the South African Government is likely to co-operate with the United Nations in imposing mandatory sanctions seems to be an absurd situation.
We should be told before adjourning whether the Government would use the veto in the event of a demand at the Security Council for mandatory sanctions to be imposed by force against South Africa. Would the veto be used or not? We ought to be told. If we are not told that it would, that is bound to heighten our anxiety that mandatory sanctions may well get beyond Britain's control.
The chief point I want to make is much narrower, although equally important. The Prime Minister told us only today—and this emphasises the need for this matter to be further discussed—that the offer of independence before majority rule had been withdraw. The House has not had an opportunity of expressing its views about that flat refusal to continue with that offer.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Prime Minister gave this information to the House only today, but he will be aware that clause 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué provided for certain measures to be taken in the event of failure to agree and that that the Prime Minister said some days ago that clause 10 was now in operation.

Sir T. Beamish: The Liberal Whip is assuming that the Prime Minister was right in being forced into this unhappy position at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, something with which I do not personally agree. If it is right up to 31st December to offer the illegal Government of Rhodesia independence before majority rule, it must also be right on 1st January, 1967. Today, the Prime Minister slammed the door on further negotiations with the illegal Government. If I am wrong in that, I hope that I shall be told, but if it is the case, a new situation has arisen which ought to be debated in the House before we rise for the Christmas Recess.

Sir Charles Taylor: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will be interested to hear that I have today had a very disturbing report from Rhodesia to say that a party of people who had chartered a flight from Trans-Globe Airways to fly back here had had their aeroplane cancelled because all aeroplanes had been commandeered for the removal of British troops to Central Africa and Malawi.

Sir T. Beamish: I have no knowledge of that, but I am sure that the House has heard with interest what my hon. Friend has said.
The point I want to make about this withdrawal of the offer of independence before African majority rule is that the effect is to pull the rug away from beneath the feet of the moderates in Rhodesia whom we want to encourage, men like Lord Malvern, who has just taken a full page advertisement in the Salisbury Herald for a statement which has already had the support of more than 400 leading citizens of Rhodesia, and who once told Mr. Smith that the right thing for a Rhodesian Government to do was to "build up an African middle class and make friends with it". That is the good advice which he gave and that is the sort of advice which I want to be followed.
What help is it to men like Lord Malvern and other moderates in politics or the Churches or the responsible Press or leading members of the business and commercial community to pull the rug away from their feet at the very time when at last they are beginning to exert some influence in Rhodesia, something which they have been unable to do because of the censorship in the last 12 months.

Mr. Hale: I am distressed by the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). We should have a little more detail about where the telegram came from. However, would the hon. and gallant Member be good enough to tell me how he defines "moderate" in politics?

Sir T. Beamish: I would not like to do so on the spur of the moment, but I can think of a good many definitions. What I mean by moderate in politics in Rhodesia is precisely what I have said.

I mean anyone in Rhodesia, no matter what the colour of his skin, who believes in a non-racial society and who wants to create one. That is moderate in terms of Rhodesian politics. I can think of all kinds of different definitions, but I hope that that makes clear what I am talking about in the context of Rhodesia.
These moderates exist. Let the House not forget that the 1961 Constitution, which it was generally thought would lead to African majority rule in Salisbury in about 15 years, was accepted by the Rhodesian electorate by two to one in the June, 1961 referendum, thus showing that the Rhodesian electorate is at heart a moderate electorate which realises that it has to live with an African majority. I profoundly believe that to be true.
By his unqualified withdrawal of the offer of independence before African majority rule the Prime Minister has done something which will be extremely distressing for moderate opinion, African and European, in Rhodesia and the House ought to have the opportunity to debate this very important aspect of the Rhodesian situation before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
This would at any rate give the Prime Minister the opportunity to show that the offer of independence before an African majority has been achieved was still open to any legal Government in Rhodesia. If not, I believe that he will have made a terrible mistake.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to return to what I regard as the most important question of all, that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others on this side of the House—the issue of Vietnam. Of course, I would not deny for a moment that there are many other important questions which hon. Members have raised, or may wish to raise later.
All I will say in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) is that if the Government had not made their statement about Rhodesia today there might have been trouble in other quarters. We were extremely grateful to hear what was said by the Government, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will not in any sense qualify what was said by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Crossman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Foot: I have my right hon. Friend with me right away, for he is much too cautious and timid to do that. Anyhow, he agrees with the Prime Minister.
Of course, the declaration by the Government was extremely important, and I am gratified that the Government made it so clearly and I hope that it will be appreciated throughout the whole of Africa and the rest of the world, and that its significance will be appreciated at the United Nations.
I now turn to Vietnam. The proposition which I should like to put to the House, and the reason why I believe this to be strictly relevant to the Motion before us, is that in some respects it appears that the next three or four weeks may be the most crucial weeks in the whole period since the intensification of the Vietnam war from February 1965.
During the past 10 days and in the last few hours, a conjunction of events has occurred which means that it is extremely probable that the countries involved in the Vietnam dispute in one way or another will have to take critical decisions during these weeks. That is why we are so concerned to have declarations, or at any rate indications, by the Government of what their policy is.
If we can solve the Vietnam dispute, who knows what else can be solved throughout the world? We could get settlements between East and West; we could get settlements with the Soviet Union. Things we have been longing for for years could be almost within our grasp if we could get a settlement in Vietnam. The whole complexion of the world could be changed. The Government may well have to make decisions during these next two or three weeks, decisions which may affect the whole outcome in Vietnam. This is what I wish to present to the House, underlining some of the points which have already been made, but indicating how crucial is the situation now presented in Vietnam.
Firstly, we have to consider exactly what has happened in Vietnam itself during these last few days to alter the situation and to make it so crucial now. The answers which were given by the Government yesterday did not seem to indicate that they understood. The

replies given by the Foreign Secretary seemed to accept—I do not put it more offensively than that—the explanations which were being made by the American administration about what had happened in Hanoi.
I ask the Government to consider one of the reports we have had from elsewhere,from Hanoi itself, and not from any North Vietnamese witness but from the journalist acting for the French newspapers in Hanoi. This was his report on 15th December.
This city was once more plunged into total war with the raids of Tuesday and yesterday, the longest, the most violent, and perhaps the most menacing to the future of this city's people.
Then followed a long report from the French correspondent in Hanoi telling of the effects of the bombing, of how near it had come to the centre of the city, and what were its consequences—an account which certainly could not be squared with that given to us by the Foreign Secretary yesterday.
Let us consider the significance of bombing on this scale so near to the centre of Hanoi, and how this may affect the situation in the next few weeks. Let us take again, not the comment of a biased witness, but that of the New York Times. Only a day or two ago, the New York Times had a leading article on what it thought were the facts of what occurred in Hanoi. It said,
Once bombs dropped on the fringes of the city, nothing could possibly have been done to prevent the world from learning the fact. Instead, Saigon denied it, Washington equivocated, and the world had another reason to doubt the news—or the lack of it—that comes out of the United States about Vietnam. Bombing within an hairs breadth of Hanoi has a special meaning, and its impact is going to be world wide. Unfortunately for the United States, that impact is going to be all the greater because Washington and American Headquarters in Saigon did not admit such bombing—and, in fact, denied it—until circumstances forced a confession. As the war escalates, so does the credibility gap.
This is the New York Times commenting on what occurred in Hanoi last week, and I think it would have been much better, and certainly more comforting for hon. Members on this side of the House, if the Foreign Secretary had not appeared to accept so readily the earlier American explanation of what had occurred, and if he had taken into


account what is being said by such independent witnesses as the French journalist I have quoted in Hanoi and the New York Times in its leading article in the United States.
There are further implications. Even before the most recent bombing, there were, of course, discussions about new peace moves. One of the most sinister aspects of Vietnam, ever since February 1965, if not earlier, has been that whenever there appeared to be a strengthening of moves towards a settlement, orders have been given for intensification of the war. This has occurred on frequent occasions, and this latest event is a very serious aspect of the whole affair.
I do not ask hon. Gentlemen to accept my word. I beg leave to quote the comment of the New York Times on the situation which we face today, and which we shall have to face in the next few weeks, on the conjunction of the bombing, the intensified bombing, and the possibility of moves towards peace. I am sure that the members of the Government, in-eluding the Leader of the House, are as passionately eager to see peace in Vietnam as I am. I am not questioning the Government's good faith in that sense. I am sure they are, but I wish the Government would pay more attention to these facts which come from independent witnesses, of how there are elements in the United States who do not wish to see the peace that the Government want to see. Whenever there is a move, whether by our Government, by elements in the United States, or by U Thant, to start negotiations afresh, orders are given from the Pentagon, or from some other source, which endanger it.
I do not ask hon. Gentlemen to accept my word. I ask them to listen to the comment of the New York Times on precisely the situation which we have to deal with here, a comment made in last Saturday's editorial:
The bombing of targets on the fringes of Hanoi, when new efforts are under way to achieve peace negotiations, is bound to undermine faith in the genuineness of Washington's latest offer to discuss a prolonged cease fire. Unhappily this is not the first instance of intensified American military action during peace efforts. Initiation of continuous bombing of North Vietnam was ordered in 1965 after months in which the Johnson administration ignored secret offers of Hanoi to confer communicated through Moscow and U Thant.

It goes on to describe other instances of when peace moves were initiated and intensified military action was initiated almost at the same time. It concludes:
Canada's peace envoy, Chester Ronning expressed a widespread belief among experts when he said recently that the bombing is stiffening Hanoi's determination to fight on. 'They will not come to the conference table on their knees', he said.
That was said by the last independent person of authority from the West who was able to visit Hanoi. I suggest that the House and the Government should take some note of it. It is a representative of the Commonwealth speaking there. The leading article in the New York Times continues:
The bombing of targets close to the heart of Hanoi—whether initiated this month or earlier—obviously precludes such discussion.
That is, that the peace discussion.
Mr. U Thant has described it as an intensification of the war and most other observers would agree. It also represents a change of administration policy, which earlier excluded the densely populated Hanoi and Haiphong areas from aerial attack. The manner in which this critical policy change …
This is the New York Times description of what has happened in the past ten days—
… has reached public awareness, and the evasive statements that have accompanied it, cannot help but sap world confidence in Washington's intentions. For, along with military targets, what has been bombed on the fringes of Hanoi is any prospect of peace talks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not pursue this in greater detail. He must confine his observations to giving reasons why the House should not adjourn until 17th January.

Mr. Foot: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was seeking to do that. I am seeking to argue that the next few weeks, because of the reasons which I have sought to outline, will be more critical in the Vietnamese war than any other period. It may very well be that decisions will have to be made in the next two or three weeks, by the American Government and by other Governments, including our own, which will affect the question of whether the war continues. Therefore, before we allow the Government to depart for this period, in which they themselves may have to participate


in decisions having such long-term consequences for the whole world, I want to know what is the Government's policy. What the Government has told us since these new critical events have occurred do not give me any comfort.
I have, I hope, quite fairly and for the most part not in my own words, but in the words of the most distinguished American newspaper, described the new situation which has to be dealt with arising from the bombing. But there is also, I am glad to say, a new situation arising from the initiative described in today's newspapers, the initiative taken by Mr. Arthur Goldberg on behalf of the United States Government at the United Nations in appealing to U Thant and suggesting to him that this is the moment when he could mediate or take proposed action for discussion.
I a very glad to read that statement, and I am very glad that Mr. Goldberg has made it. Many of us have for weeks and months past urged our own Government to pay special regard to the proposals which U Thant has made for settling the dispute. I do not quarrel, therefore, with any proposal that he should be asked to mediate. I am very much in favour of it. In my view, it would have been very much better if the United Nations had been brought into this matter much earlier. Indeed, the Americans would not have any authority to continue with their retaliatory bombing in Vietnam if this matter had been brought to the United Nations at the very beginning. However, that is beside the point.
The question now is how our Government are to make sure in the next week or two that we use our maximum influence to ensure that the initiative which U Thant is being asked to undertake shall prosper and that the intensifying of the bombing, which could destroy the whole of that initiative, shall be stopped. This is what concerns us, and we have had no plain indication from the Government of what their attitude about it is.
I hope that the Government will tell us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) asked, that we shall be pressing most urgently throughout this coming period for the stopping of the bombing. That is not

all we should press for, of course, but I put this request to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Will the Government now, in private but also, and preferably, in public, make a statement, which they have so far refrained from making, and act upon it? I do not believe that the statement for which we ask would offend any section in the House or the country. In fact, it would be widely welcomed. On many occasions during these past months, I have asked the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others to say whether the British Government agree with the three points put forward by U Thant for an approach to a settlement of the Vietnam dispute. Each time I have asked, I have been given what I can only describe as a reply which does not deal with the question. I have been told that the Government seek peace, that they want a negotiated settlement, that they must pursue it in their own way, but I have never had an answer on whether they agree with the U Thant proposals.
This is the time when the Government should make perfectly clear that they will give the maximum support to U Thant in the efforts he will make. They can best do this by saying that they appreciate the proposals which U Thant has put forward and that the British Government now favour them. I think that that would be going further than they have already gone. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that tonight and that it will be the policy pursued by the Government in the coming weeks.
I hope, also, that we shall have today, before Parliament departs, a plain reiteration of the Government's declared policy on the question of the bombing. Many of us have protested bitterly against the support which the Government declared for the American bombing of North Vietnam. I was bitterly opposed to the whole bombing project. In my view, it was never justified and could not be justified in any way under the Charter of the United Nations. But we did have from the Government, following strong pressure from this side of the House, at the Labour Party Conference and elsewhere, a clear undertaking that they dissociated themselves and this country from the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong. That was part of their policy, and we, therefore, asked yesterday that


the Foreign Secretary should repeat the undertaking in words which could be understood here and on the other side of the Atlantic as well. But we did not get it. We are absolutely entitled to it, and I hope that we shall get it today.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to sit there reading the Evening News when my hon. Friend is asking these questions? Should not he listen to the debate?

Mr. Foot: I am asking my right hon. Friends to consider whether they will reiterate the statement which was made to the House and the country that they are opposed to the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong and that they dissociate themselves from it entirely.
There are many other things which they will have to do during these weeks. They will have to exert their influence where we have an influence. Many of us on this side have had differences with the Government on this question over many months. Our difference has been that we believe that we should have expressed our dissociation from American policy right from the beginning, and we still hold strongly to that view. The Government have always replied—it is the best answer which they have had to offer and, although it has not persuaded me, it has persuaded many people—"Our policy means that we have power and influence with the United States Government, and by not making ringing declarations in public we have the power to persuade them behind the scenes". That has been their claim. Very well. This is the moment for them to exert their influence and press to the very limit. They will be pressing on the side of the New York Times and all those elements in the United States which have been pressing in the same way. One of the most regrettable aspects of the whole matter is that, while there have been many people in the United States and large sections of liberal opinion—Senator Fulbright, Walter Lippman and others—who for months and, indeed, throughout the whole Vietnam war have been pressing for a different policy, those people have had precious little assistance from Her Majesty's Government.
I ask that the Government, during these critical weeks, use all their power

on the side of those in the United States who are pressing for a liberal policy in Vietnam and use all their influence to oppose those who wish to intensify the war there. They should make these intentions as plain as they possibly can to the House of Commons today.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I have been struck by the illogical attitude adopted by some hon. Members who suggest, on the one hand, that we should do everything possible to end a war in Vietnam—I entirely agree there—but who, at virtually the same moment, suggest that we should do everything possible to start another war in Africa. This is what is likely to happen as a result of the Government's present position on Rhodesia and what hon. Members are now urging.
I believe that it is not too late even now, while we are in Recess and before 1st January, for reason to operate on both sides and for efforts to reach an agreement on the procedure to be adopted regarding Rhodesia, which, in any event, in my opinion, is a matter of only minimal importance. But, as I say, there are many hon. Members who amaze me by seeming to suggest that we ought to do everything possible to cause another nation to end a war while at the same time doing everything possible to bring about a war with one of our Colonies.
However, I shall spend no more time on that. I return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who asked some very interesting questions about the prices and incomes policy. What is to be the Government's attitude during the Recess with regard to Regulations under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act? It was during the last Recess that Regulations were laid which prevented employers from carrying out the terms of contracts which they had entered into long before 20th July.
There were many of us who, both in the House and in the Standing Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, pointed out that the procedure for the laying of Regulations under Part IV was quite contrary to the procedure under Part II of the original Bill. Under Part II, Regulations were to be laid under the


affirmative procedure, and they could operate only after the House had passed a Resolution. Under Part IV, a Regulation can be laid and can become operative immediately so long as within 28 days thereafter the House of Commons is asked to confirm an affirmative Order.
That means that at any time during the Recess the Government will be able to lay a Regulation to bring in Part IV of the Act concerning any part of the wages, salaries or prices structure. The reason why I ask for confirmation or explanation on this point is purely because the last Recess was used to introduce Regulations.
We have not had information about how the period of severe restraint will operate. It is due to operate, we are told, from 1st January. General guidelines have been laid out, but there are many people, not only Members of the House of Commons, but people actively engaged in wage and salary negotiations, who seem to be as much in the dark as we are. This is completely wrong.
Indeed, I read a statement only the other day by a man who was a member of the Prices and Incomes Board who was reported as having said that never again will we go back to what we formerly knew as the wage negotiating system. Is this part of Government policy? These are the sort of questions that require an answer before the House decides to go away for this period.
The other point which I wish to raise obviously affects my constituents, who ask what sort of protection they can have or can expect from the Home Secretary when prisoners escape so often from Dartmoor Prison. Not only are my constituents, the normal citizens, with wives and families, disturbed when a newspaper report suggests that a recent escaped prisoner should not be approached as he is extremely dangerous and suggesting that farmers should get out double-barrelled shotguns before they approach this prisoner, but constituents who are members of the police force and of the special police are called upon to turn out and set up road blocks and do everything they can to take the prisoner and prevent him from becoming a danger to the community around the prison.
I notice that in his statement on this prisoner's escape the Home Secretary said that
one of the important provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill is designed somewhat to reduce the prison population".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 253.]
This is one way in which the prison population is helping the Home Secretary, by leaving the prisons, but I do not think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman really meant. When we read reports of the sort of conditions in which this prisoner lived, one begins to wonder why he left prison at all, unless he wanted to spend Chirstmas at home.
The important thing is that the Home Secretary has, I understand, had an inquiry made at the prison into the circumstances surrounding the escape and, I hope, the general circumstances surrounding other escapes, which are becoming too numerous for my constituents and, no doubt, many other people in Devon to feel other than that the situation at Dartmoor leaves a great deal to be desired. Questions of this sort should be answered before we pass the Motion.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others of my hon. Friends have raised matters of global importance about Vietnam, to which I would add just one point. As one who six months ago was in Cambodia, I am extremely concerned that the Government should keep an eye on the alleged violation of the Cambodian frontiers and, equally, an eye on what is happening in Thailand, which could develop into as serious a situation as Vietnam. But although these matters of global importance and other issues concerning the economic situation have been raised, I wish to speak shortly on a relatively minor matter of nothing like the same importance.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recollect that week after week my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and I have, with dogged persistence, although regrettably unsuccessfully, asked him to afford time for a debate on sport. There is no formidable lobby for sport in the House of Commons, but there are a great many


people outside who are interested in it. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that certain urgent matters arise not only following the publication of the first-ever Annual Report of the Sports Council, but out of the urgent question of money. It needs no inside knowledge, of which I have none, of the way the Government work to realise that this will be the time of year when major decisions will be taken concerning the allocation of public expenditure for the coming year.
The purpose of my intervention is to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the feeling that expenditure on sport should not be cut down any more and should, if possible, be increased. I am well aware of the difficulties of the Government, and I would not wish to criticise them for what they have had to do in the measures of 20th July to the sports budget, because, if anything had to be cut, perhaps it was right that it should be expenditure on swimming baths and the like, which clearly take a priority far less than that of housing, schools and our other absolute priorities.
None the less, by 17th January it will be too late to do anything about these matters. For better or worse, public expenditure decisions such as sport will be solidified. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to give us at least the assurance that he will convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the other decision-makers in these matters that the feeling has been expressed that the sports budget should no longer be the Cinderella in our major Cabinet decisions.
It is not, however, merely a question of money. There is need for time to be allocated to a fruitful debate on the workings not only of the Sports Council, but of the regional sports councils, on which several hon. Members of this House serve. If it is doubted that there is urgency for this matter, the fact is that many important conferences will take place, as they always do on these matters, over the Christmas and New Year period at which decisions will be reached. Before those conferences take place during the Recess, there is, I would have thought, a case for Members of Parliament to express their views on these matters.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the earlier reply of the Leader of the House that this was a matter for private Members is somewhat unfair as the Report of the Sports Council is a report from a body set up by the Government and a body responsible to the Department of Education and Science and, therefore, ultimately, in a sense, responsible to this House?

Mr. Dalyell: I agree to this extent. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House meant to be helpful in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley that this matter was, perhaps, best attended to by Private Members; but it is not for want of asking on the part of certain private Members that there has been no opportunity to debate sport this Session.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And in other Sessions.

Mr. Dalyell: There is another matter of some urgency. In the Annual Report of the Sports Council, attention was paid to great projects which could be started by several authorities acting together, for example, in the Lee Valley, at Poles-worth and at Aintree and the like, but if this is to happen, it requires legislation, and it requires urgent legislation, because as the law stands at the moment there are difficulties over the provision of finance from Government sources towards schemes which are initiated by local authorities. That is a matter for Parliament, and the local authorities cannot start moving in these matters till such time as Parliament has made up its mind. There are also other decisions which are to be taken or started to be taken during the Recess—the arrangements for the British Olympic Association and the Government's contribution to it, on the advice of the Sports Council, for the Olympics in Mexico in 1968. All of these are matters of urgency, and so are the development of regional sports councils and the recommendations of the technical advisory service.
Finally, there are certain misconceptions which should urgently be cleared up, resulting from the recent contribution by Mr. Christopher Chataway in the Sunday Times, because to read that one would think this Government had done very little to help sport, whereas my hon.


Friends know—my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley know—great strides have in fact been made. Although there have been certain financial difficulties, remarkable developments have taken place and the misconception that this Government have done nothing to help sport should be cleared up at the earliest opportunity. For all these reasons, I would ask that the Leader of the House pay attention to this matter when he winds up.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I regret that the House should be considering an Adjournment for the Recess before it has had the opportunity to consider the report, or that part of the Mountbatten Report, prepared by Mr. Mark, the Chief Constable of Leicester. The events of the last few days surrounding the escape of Frank Mitchell from Dartmoor Prison are obviously matters of concern beyond my constituency or of just any one hon. Member, although perhaps hon. Members will understand that this particular case, affecting this particular prison, is to me personally one of the very greatest significance, as it is in that locality, and my constituents have every right to be concerned that this matter is not to be debated before the House adjourns. I would be the first to commend the Home Secretary on the speed with which he asked Mr. Mark to go to Dartmoor Prison and prepare his report, but I think one would be forgiven for questioning why there was such dramatic need for speed if we are not to have the opportunity to debate this report before this House adjourns.
It would seem that the Home Secretary, in asking that the Mark report should be added to the Mountbatten report, must have been aware that this would make it impossible for us to have the opportunity to discuss this issue before we adjourn—as it will be impossible if this Motion is carried. I would ask the Leader of the House if he could obtain a statement from the Home Secretary as to why it was not possible for the Mark report to be published separately so that we could have debated it before the adjournment of this House, and why it should be tagged on to the Mountbatten inquiry in the first place.
I am sure every hon. Member would accept that if we are going to achieve this object, which can only be found in a full debate in this Chamber on this subject, it is important to do so at the very first and earliest opportunity, and there are various reasons why I believe this is important. First of all, it is important to maintain public confidence in the prison service and in the Home Secretary. That is a very important factor. Secondly, it is necessary, from my point of view, to be able to answer my constituents' legitimate doubts and worries on this matter when I go back to my constituency at the end of this week, and before I am in a position to do this it seems to me it is necessary for me to have seen and considered and questioned the findings of the Mark inquiry. This, I suspect, I am not going to have the opportunity to do, and that is why I believe that this House should stay here till that report has been published and has been put before all hon. Members. It can only be done, I would submit, with a full debate, and a full opportunity—not only for hon. Members representing constituencies around Dartmoor, but for all hon. Members. It will be remembered that the chances are that Frank Mitchell has now left the vicinity of Dartmoor—and there are hon. Members on both sides who would like to have the opportunity to examine and debate that report.
I think it is profoundly unsatisfactory that people who are directly involved in this escape are not going to have the opportunity for their names to be cleared before this House adjourns. The gravest possible allegations have been made about the Home Secretary himself, about the prison officials in general, and indeed about the prison officers. All these people have had their conduct questioned in the most unfortunate and regrettable way, and all hon. Members will greatly deplore that those people are not going to see their names completely cleared before this House adjourns. It is only fair to those people that we should have the opportunity to see this report and debate it before we adjourn, and I think that we should do so if for no other reason than that.
I would be the first to say—I hope that this is true—that a large number of the things that have been said about the


events leading up to the escape of Frank Mitchell from Dartmoor Prison will be found in the findings of that report to have no substance in fact. That is what I hope to hear. It is what, I am sure, is the wish of all hon. Members in this House. I have no wish here today to encourage or perpetuate the rumours which are flying around my constituency and in the country at large—no wish at all; but the only way in which those rumours can be stopped is, if we are allowed to see the findings of that report.
Those rumours are doing a great deal of harm. All hon. Members know about the rumours which are going about—about taxi drives, to buy budgerigars, about visits to inns in the locality. These may or may not be true. It is not enough for me as the Member representing that constituency to hope they are not true. It is necessary for me to be sure that they are not true, and I can be sure only when I have seen the report and heard it debated in this House.
But the rumours do not stop there. Only today I heard of even more extraordinary events which may have taken place and which I should like—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into this matter in great detail. He may only give reasons why the House should not adjourn till 17th January.

Mr. Heseltine: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to make the point that there is a continuing emergence of rumours of one sort and another, and that they are causing great harm to the prison service, to the Home Secretary, to the prison officers; those rumours are continuing to emerge, and the only way we can stop them from emerging is by publishing and debating the report. I would, with respect, submit that even today I am being presented with an example where it was felt that the honour party—the working party to which Mitchell was attached before his escape—was found to be too close to a firing range at which small arms and ammunition were available, and that it was submitted to the prison authorities that in fact prisoners might be able to obtain either small arms or ammunition. This is yet another rumour which is only just beginning to emerge. This is an example

of what is going on, and the only way to stop it from happening is for us to see the report and debate it in this House.
As I have said, it would give me the greatest possible satisfaction to see them all proved to have no substance. This is what we all want to see, and I think it must be in the interests of the House and of the prison service to have the truth and not speculation about these matters.
I should also like the House to have the chance to consider the cost of recapturing prisoners escaping from Dartmoor. Under the present system the cost of capturing prisoners is borne as to 50 per cent. by the local ratepayers in the county of Devon. This must place upon the shoulders of those whose job it is to organise the hunt the responsibility for deciding the scale on which the hunt should take place, and there is a financial incentive to keep the number of searchers as low as possible. If we are to see yet another escape from Dartmoor prison in the near future—and there have been ten in the course of this year alone—I should not like to think that the local authorities responsible for these hunts were under any sort of financial disincentive to use the greatest possible number of people available.
Public confidence has been badly shaken over the Mitchell escape—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member really must not go into great detail about this episode in giving reasons why the House should not adjourn until 17th January.

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I had hoped that I could draw the attention of the House to the need to try and bring speculation to an end as quickly as possible. If we are not able to do that, it will go on until 17th January, by which time it will be far worse, and we do not even know if we shall have a chance to debate the matter then. It would be valuable if the Leader of the House or the Government could tell us if there will be a debate when we get back, but it would be more valuable to have a debate before we go away in the first place.
If I may, I want to give the House an example of the sort of anxiety which surrounds the people living under the shadow of Dartmoor prison. A letter on


the subject has arrived in the last day or so. It reads as follows:
…it so happens that over the last few days my wife has been at the farm near Tavistock and alone, except for our son. This has put a most extraordinary strain on both of them, living almost under seige conditions. Milking times have had to be adjusted so that they are in the house before dark with everywhere bolted and barred like a castle, and my wife has been too terrified to walk from one room to another after dark without being accompanied by my son with a loaded gun.
What do I say to constituents like that, if we have not been able to examine the matter thoroughly on the floor of the House before we adjourn?
One can understand the human anxiety, to which the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) drew our attention earlier. Simply because we are dealing with speculation, we cannot deal with fact.
There is one final reason which I would put to the Home Secretary in urging him to publish the Report and enable us to have a debate on it before the House adjourns. In this country, over a considerable period of time, there has been a growing feeling for liberalisation of prison conditions and for penal reform of one sort and another. There are many hon. Members who have worked hard to achieve this, and there are many bodies of distinguished people outside the House who have given their lives to try and bring about a different attitude to the conditions that used once to exist within our prison system. The purpose was to try and retrain people who had failed to return to society and give them another chance.
It is one of the great tragedies of the Prison Service that its members are never praised for their successes but only blamed for their failures. By permitting speculation to continue and by enabling this story to be blazoned across the headlines of the nation's Press day after day, the work of those people to improve prison conditions is being threatened in a way totally out of accord with the significance of one particular escape. The longer it goes on, the greater will be the prejudice to the work that they have done. Again, I would say that the only way in which this can be brought to an end is if we can replace the rumour and secrecy with which the matter is surrounded by truth and confidence.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The House is proposing to adjourn at a time of considerable tension and anxiety in a number of respects. In the last two days, yesterday and today, we have had published a couple of White Papers on matters which are of continuing interest to the House, and I hope that, before the House adjourns, we shall have some statement concerning the future of the British Press which is in grave jeopardy at present.
The first of the White Papers, published yesterday, is entitled, "Report by Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C. on Procedures for the Arrest, Interrogation and Detention of Suspected Terrorists in Aden." It is important to say that, contrary to the impression which might have been given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, possibly unintentionally, it does not deny the allegations made by Amnesty International. It neither confirms nor denies them, but certainly it creates a prima facie case for carrying out a thorough investigation during the period in which the House will not be sitting into whether there is substance in the Amnesty report, and I am sure that that will be carried out with great attention.
Today, we have received another White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General decided that he would not offer a statement to the House upon it. I think that he was right in that decision, because White Papers should be the subject of debate rather than the subject of statements. This is a very debatable White Paper, and there are a number of statements in it which the House will want to examine in detail.
Perhaps the Press might bear in mind the fact that, although a White Paper forecasts the probable nature of legislation, it is not in itself legislation. To take certain parts of a White Paper and assume that legislation will follow those parts is not a particularly scientific thing to do. Because we cannot return to this matter until we come back after the Recess, I should like to correct a couple of points before bringing up—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We really cannot debate the contents of that White Paper. All that we can discuss is whether we should adjourn until 17th January.

Mr. Jenkins: I was proposing in this context to suggest that it would be wrong for the House to adjourn until 17th January if it was under the misapprehension that the White Paper was a precise programme for specific action in relation to the future of broadcasting. It seems to me to be a misapprehension which the House might easily have unless one or two words are said in correction of it. What I want to say is no more than that.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government encouraged misapprehensions, if mis-apprehensions there be, by the way in which they have brought in the pay freeze and the period of severe restraint, and that there is far too much Government by White Paper already in other spheres than the one to which the hon. Gentleman is referring?

Mr. Jenkins: No. I would not agree with that, and I am not sure that it would be in order for me either to agree or to disagree with it. In fact, I do not agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
I wish to point to the fact that the Government have said that they do not rule out advertising as a means of financing broadcasting stations in public ownership. I would add to that one further point on the White Paper. It is that the Government consider that more information is required before final judgments are made on the way in which this new service should be constituted and organised. I will say no more on the subject except that if, as is suggested in the White Paper, there is to be local broadcasting in this country, it must be under local control and cannot be controlled centrally by any body.
I should now like to refer to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), which was extremely interesting and pertinent. He referred to reports that British forces at present stationed at bases in Asia are, according to his information, apparently proceeding to bases in Africa at the present moment.
That suggests that, if there is any substance in these reports, during the Recess something may happen which will constitute a re-orientation, or perhaps one can say a de-orientation, of the presence, of British troops in the world. It may be

that British concentration on Asia is to be replaced by concentration on Africa. There are many hon. Members on this side of the House, and there may be some on the benches opposite, who would regard this as a welcome development, because although this country may have—in fact I am sure does have—a peace-making rôle in Asia, I do not believe-and I think that the House generally does not believe—that we have any longer a military rôle to perform in the Far East. If what the hon. Gentleman said were to happen during the Recess, and we were to return to find that a change had been made in the position, or location of British Forces from Asia to Africa, many of us on this side would welcome this development.
I propose now to say a few words in support of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I ask the Government to recall the House if the bombing of Vietnam is recommenced during the Recess. I welcome the initiative of the American Government in referring the matter to the United Nations, but, as my hon. Friend said, too often in the past President Johnson's fair words of peace have been accompanied by actions to escalate the war.
If the President really wants peace, the best thing that he can do is to stop the bombing unconditionally—

Mr. John Rankin: And withdraw his troops.

Mr. Jenkins: —and, as my hon. Friend says, withdraw his troops. The British Government will carry no credibility as international peace-makers until they tell the United States to do precisely that, but it would be unrealistic to suppose that the American Government would be likely to withdraw their troops from Vietnam prior to any negotiations.
It has been suggested from time to time that those who have spoken in the sense that my hon. Friend has spoken, and as I am speaking now, should address ourselves also to Hanoi. I have done that, and my final comment to the Government is that if they were to pay a little more attention to what is said from Hanoi, and to check the reports which are made by French correspondents and others who have been there, they might


decide to change their attitude to this matter.
The most certain way to stiffen the will of a nation to resist is to bomb it. It all depends on what sort of bombing is carried out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Member, but this is really quite irrelevant to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Jenkins: I am bound to suggest that if bombing is carried to a certain point it changes its nature, and we may have the development of escalation to the point of nuclear war. If, following the President's peace approaches, the previous pattern is followed, and a major peace approach is accompanied by a major escalation of war, it is possible that while we are away the world will find itself faced with a nuclear war.
It therefore seems right and proper that we should draw attention to the fact that at a moment of hope for peace, there is also a moment of peril, namely, the possibility of a further escalation of the war, and I think that we would do well to seek from my right hon. Friend an assurance that if anything of that sort were to occur during the Recess he would not hesitate to recommend the Government to recall the House.
The special relationship which the Government are supposed to have with the Americans would be of no value at all if the price of support on Rhodesia was consent to disaster in Asia. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary refused to reafirm the Prime Minister's opposition to the killing of civilians inherent in the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reaffirm that opposition when he replies to the debate. It must be reaffirmed if the Government wish to retain the support of the House. I am convinced that neither Members of Parliament, nor the people of this country, will allow the Government to consent to the continued and increasing slaughter of the people of a small and almost defenceless nation in the name of freedom.
I have received a letter, and perhaps I might be allowed to quote from it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have indicated the limits within which this debate must take place, and I think that the hon. Member has transgressed those limits.

Mr. Jenkins: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker and will say no more except to invite my right hon. Friend to deal with some of the points which I have raised.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): In only seven years in this House and during the course of about 28 of these debates. I have not heard hon. Members mention so many subjects on which they have grave anxieties. It is clear that it is not just on this side of the House that there is a deep mistrust of the way the Government may behave when the House is in Recess.
I want to say a few words about Rhodesia, about which I am far from happy, because it seems to me that many questions have been left unanswered. One of them was answered today by the Prime Minister, and this was the question of the threat of the withdrawal of all previous proposals for a constitutional settlement and an undertaking not to submit to Parliament any proposals for independence before majority rule.
The Prime Minister made a statement today, but he carefully avoided making one when asked outright to do so during the debate only ten days ago. It seems to me, therefore, that there may possibly have been a change of mind on the part of the Government. I am astonished that the statement was made in this way today, because in the United Nations only a day or two ago Lord Caradon assured the Afro-Asian group that the Government would not support a measure of this kind because this was a matter for the British Parliament, the responsibility of the British Parliament. If this is so, why are we not being given a chance to debate this very important decision? This is a change from the position taken during the debate two weeks ago. Surely we should at this time have further opportunities to debate what proposals might now be made to solve the Rhodesian problem?
The second point which worries me about the Rhodesian situation is the


danger of sanctions being extended during the Recess to South Africa and Portugal. The Prime Minister has given us an assurance that he does not wish to see these sanctions escalate in any way, but again he has been very careful to avoid giving a reply when he has been asked to state that the Government would use their veto if such a Motion were put before the United Nations. Will the Government give in to pressure from the Afro-Asian group yet again if the matter is raised during the Recess? Why cannot we have an undertaking on this before the House rises?
There are in today's Press reports of increased naval activity off the coast of Mozambique. What is going to happen there? What instructions have been given to the commanders of ships off Mozambique? What sort of ships will they intercept? Will they intercept those going to Mozambique? Will they intercept those going to South Africa? Which ships will they intercept? We have not been told.
We have had no assurances about this escalation into a complete blockade of the whole of Southern Africa. I would remind the House that it was during the Easter Recess that the last blockade was started and that the Navy was given instructions to intercept ships going to Mozambique at a time when the House was not sitting and able to debate the matter, or to have any say in it whatever.
The difficulty is that we have had nothing but equivocation and double-talk from the Prime Minister on this matter. When he first came back from Salisbury he made it abundantly clear that there was no question whatever of majority rule. He said there was no question, today or tomorrow, or in any time measurable by the clock—I am paraphrasing what he said—and that it was quite clear that this was a matter for rate of development of the people of Rhodesia. Today we have had his statement about the present proposals and the decision that there shall be no independence without majority rule. He has gone back on his first statement.
We have had these twistings and turnings so often that it is difficult for us to have any trust in the Prime Minister while the House is not here to question him. We have had a constant use of

language which, in my view, has been calculated to make a settlement virtually impossible. I hope that during the Recess the Government will examine the Paris Treaty, which I saw in the State Department at Washington recently. This was the Treaty signed by the British Government and the then rebel régime in the United States of America in which it was said in the preamble that the two countries wished
to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony ".
I commend to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that during the Recess they read that Treaty again. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this is the manner in which he should approach the problem. I do not want to see, during the coming Recess, a recourse to warfare and bloodshed, such as happened in the case of the United States.

6.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): In his closing peroration—

Mr. Reginald Eyre: On a point of order. As you have called the Leader of the House to reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must ask whether an attempt is being made to prevent the discussion of the urgent matter of the Land Commission Bill. As you know, last night the Minister of Land and Natural Resources told the Press that he would make a statement in the House today about the date of the first appointed day, which is of tremendous importance and which affects all the professions and every house owner. The Minister has not made the statement. It is believed that he will delay the first appointed day, but he has not said anything to that effect, and we do not know what the situation will be.
In those circumstances, is it in order to request the Leader of the House to state precisely what the position is with regard to the first appointed day under the Land Commission Bill—whether it will be delayed, and, if so, in what way and for what reason?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of any attempt to prevent the discussion of anything. The hon. Member has made his point and I have called the Leader of the House in answer to the debate.

Sir C. Taylor: Are those who have been trying to speak during the debate and have not yet been called to be deprived of an opportunity of speaking before the Leader of the House replies?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The speech of the Leader of the House does not necessarily conclude the debate. It is my duty to call any Member who catches my eye. It so happens that the Leader of the House caught my eye, and that is why I called him.

Mr. Rankin: May we therefore hope from what you have said that we shall hear more of the Leader of the House later on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have called the Leader of the House to speak now.

Sir C. Taylor: Are we to have the benefit of a further reply from a Minister to the speeches which follow that of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not for me to say.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that it would be to the benefit of the House if I intervened at this point. My intervention does not necessarily conclude the debate.
I want to reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who gave the impression that at least he wanted a Recess in which he could do something useful. I have a feeling that he was in favour of our having a Recess, during which time he wanted to go to Washington. I shall try to be brief and to sum up the multifarious questions that have been asked, although I may have some difficulty in doing so because of the rules of order.
In each of these debates the ingenuity that hon. and right hon. Members show is eluding the rules of order in an attempt to bring in their points of policy is extremely impressive. Their ingenuity is also very great in seeking to inveigle the Leader of the House into making statements or giving information which his colleagues do not want to give. There-

fore, he is always in a very delicate position in deciding whom he will satisfy.
I thought that I would start with individual points and go as fast as I could, taking each of them in the proper way and explaining why we might have to postpone the Recess in order to meet them. I was gratified when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the Government got rid of the House in order to make statements with the full apparatus of public relations officers. I can assure him about the issue of The Times. On that issue I was accused by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—who has now left the House, as usual—of glancing at an evening newspaper. I was reading it so that I could assist myself in answering the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of The Times. I saw that there was a certain amount of news in the evening newspaper. There is a Question on the Order Paper on the subject, and, whether or not it is reached my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I hope, be making a statement at 12 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Albans also asked me about the Land Commission Bill. The Minister's reply is on the tape, but perhaps it should go on the record now. It might be in order for me to read the Written Answer of the Minister. He says:
…in the expectation that the Land Commission Bill would receive Royal Assent before Christmas I had announced in the summer my intention, if possible, of making the first appointed day 1st March, 1967. In view of the progress of the Bill and in deference to representations from professional bodies and others of the administrative advantages that would accrue particularly because of the interaction of the Bill on Capital Gains Tax, I intend to fix 6th April, 1967, as the first appointed day under the Land Commission Bill.
So hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can feel that their solicitations have been heeded, and that a slight postponement has been made to 6th April for the institution of the Land Commission. We shall then be able to test, after it has been set up, whether or not the charges made against it are justified.
I now turn to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). I do not want to spend too long on it, except to say that I have taken a lot of trouble


about his case. There seems to be no doubt that he is wrong in thinking that because Aden has now joined the Federation it has changed its position as a Colony—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that my hon. Friend said that it had ceased to be a British Colony. It remains a Colony and, therefore, remains under British law, and Article 2 of the Treaty provides that nothing in the Treaty shall affect British sovereignty over Aden. The Supreme Court itself is established under Part 5 of the Aden Constitution and, therefore, anybody—I shall not mention individual cases—who was tried there would be tried before the Chief Justice, Sir Richard Le Gallais. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Aden has the powers and authorities vested in the High Court of Justice in England from time to time, and there are, of course, residual powers resting here and exercised by the Foreign Secretary.
We therefore think that there is no reasonable doubt that if, in the cases which my hon. Friend raised, British citizens are tried in Aden, they are tried in what is still a British Colony, and, since there is an appeal to Britain and to the Prerogative of Mercy here, they fall under the category on which, Mr. Speaker, your Ruling was given—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the doubt is not about the validity of the court or the British sovereignty over the territory, but about how the law is being administered?

Mr. Crossman: I am not a lawyer, like my hon. Friend, nor versed in the semantics of the law. Our expert authorities tell me that the strictures which my hon. Friend made in his Motion are not justified. He asked whether or not the constitutional basis on which his stricture was made was justified. We consider that it is not, and we think that, in this case, the normal practice would stand.
The subject of the Prices and Incomes Bill has been raised. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) mentioned the reference of the farmworkers' wages to

the Prices and Incomes Board and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, rightly, that in January and February, we shall enter the period of severe restraint, when very interesting new precedents might be established. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that no more negative Orders will be laid. I can give no such assurance. The Government have the right to lay such Orders and may well do so. We must await events.
There has been a great deal of discussion both in general debate and in Prayers about this subject. It is a subject which we have fully discussed and I think that we may be discussing it further when we get back. We need not stop our Recess in any anxiety of being denied discussion on this subject.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said that he was deeply concerned about telephone tapping and the denial to us of the common right to be tapped by the Secret Service—[Interruption.]—or the removal of the privilege, whichever he likes. I will pass the hon. and gallant Member's remarks on to the Prime Minister. I recognise that they were sincere. There are two sides to this question and he was putting one which has taxed a number of hon. Gentlemen and even a number of Peers. I will put to the Prime Minister the case for M.P.s' telephones being subject to tapping.
I now turn to Dartmoor escapes. I thank hon. Members for the sober way in which they put the issues. I see the argument that we could have had two reports. From the point of view of the House, however, a single report on escapes and how to stop them is better than two. This one will be completed in the near future and when we have had time to digest it—we will have a good deal during the Recess—we can discuss through the usual channels whether and how we can debate it. It will be an important report.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the subject of sport. He was right to do so, although he was mistaken in thinking that there is no sports lobby in this place. There are many active and passive sport experts here who put pressure on the Government. My hon. Friend was also right to say that sport has received harsh


treatment, partly because of the local authority cuts which were necessitated by our economic difficulties.
Certainly, I will convey to the Chancellor, to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to his Parliamentary Secretary the points which my hon. Friend made. This is a subject which the House should consider. Neither we nor the local authorities should let sport be the "Cinderella". I hope that local authorities, when asked to make economies, will not always cut back on sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) raised the subject of the White Paper on Broadcasting. I cannot predict whether we can give time to a special debate on it; that depends partly on when we get the Bill on marine broadcasting offences, how wide it is drafted and whether we can have a debate on that, including discussion on other parts of the White Paper. If that is impossible, I will consider whether or not we can have a debate. We have waited a long time for the White Paper. It is an important one, and we want to have an informed discussion in the House.
I now turn to the two major issues. Ironically enough, on the first day that I held the post of Leader of the House last August, I had to answer an Adjournment debate and then, also, Rhodesia and Vietnam were the main subjects and there was this curious separation, with all the speeches about Rhodesia from one side of the House and those about Vietnam from the other. In both cases, there was a plea against, and a fear of, escalation.
I know the strength of the feeling among my hon. Friends about Vietnam. There have been incidents recently which could have justified them in feeling anxious. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) says that it was very ominous that whenever there was any chance of peace breaking out some heavy bombing occurred. He thought that that was a demonstration of something like sabotage by the military of the efforts to make peace.
This is an unlikely explanation. If we are to talk about hypotheses, the hypothesis of "brinkmanship" is probably more likely than that of a split between the Pentagon and the State

Department. We must all remember that what we have to face, among other things, is the fact that, in the past, particularly during the Korean war, one of the methods of ending it was a combination of negotiation with an ultimate threat of force.
Certainly, that is a grace danger here. If that hypothesis were correct, in a sense it would be more dangerous even than that which my hon. Friend suggested. Certainly, when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asks for an assurance that we will bring all the pressure which we can on the United States Government to achieve a settlement, I would point out that, for two years, the Government have been bringing all the pressure they can, privately, to achieve a settlement. My hon. Friend may think that it is unsuccessful, but it has been there and it has been continuous.
I give him, and my hon. Friends the Members for Putney, Ebbw Vale and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) the assurance which I gave in August. Of course, if the situation became suddenly so grave as to warrant a recall of Parliament, we should not be afraid of doing so, but I devoutly believe that this will not be necessary—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that, possibly, public pressure on the Government of the United States over Vietnam might have more effect than the private pressure which has been applied until now?

Mr. Crossman: I see that my hon. Friend is once again trying to inveigle certain statements out of me. I will certainly pass on to the Foreign Secretary what she says and he will no doubt discuss it with her.
On Rhodesia—

Mr. James Dickens: Before my right hon. Friend turns to that subject, may we have from him tonight an undertaking to the effect that he will pass on to the Foreign Secretary the grave anxieties of many hon. Members on this side about the current trend in Vietnam? May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow, reaffirming that the British Government dissociate themselves from the bombing of urban centres of population in North Vietnam?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend can have the first and not the second. I should like now to try to reply to some of the other points which have been raised.
The other subject is Rhodesia. On this, I have requests from the hon. Member for Totnes, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the hon. Member for St. Albans and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East asked me what steps we were taking to keep information going on the implementation of sanctions, and put it to me that there should be a White Paper on the United Nations machinery. As advised, I can see no useful purpose being served by our issuing a White Paper on the machinery that exists. One can get all the information one needs without such a White Paper. All the machinery is there to be studied. Indeed, we have issued today a White Paper which is highly relevant to this matter, and which is entitled Documents Relating to Proposals for a Settlement, 1966. That is now available and a White Paper relating to the United Nations machinery is not necessary because, as I say, the machinery is there to be studied.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says that the machinery is there to be studied. The machinery for the application of economic sanctions is certainly not there to be studied in the Charter. The Charter has certain articles prescribing machinery for the application of military sanctions but, as far as I am aware, nothing of the sort exists for the application of economic sanctions.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that for some countries a resolution of the United Nations may be automatically written into their domestic law, while for other countries domestic legislation must be introduced. A timetable is, therefore, necessary in those cases. This House and the British people are entitled to know how all this will work, because at present nobody knows and I suspect that even members of the Government are in complete ignorance, with the rest of us, on this subject.

Mr. Crossman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's latter suspicions were correct, a White Paper would be an

impossibility. However, I assure him that. Her Majesty's Government know what they are doing and I am sure that when he has reflected on this point he will find that it would be unnecessary for us to issue a White Paper for this purpose. The Order in Council which we will require will, I believe, be laid during the next day or two. That will give us plenty of time in which to consider the matter. There will be 28 days—sitting days and not calendar days—in which to debate this issue, as, no doubt, it will need to be debated in this House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East also asked if we would say in advance whether or not we would use the veto. As the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have both stated, we cannot consider such hypothetical questions. Just as the prediction that the institution of mandatory sanctions would wrest control from this country and lead us to disaster have not been fulfilled, so we believe that, on the whole, this operation has been successful up to now and we are confident that it will continue to be so through the Christmas Recess.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree to come to a decision on the Motion and will be in favour of our adjourning our activities until 17th January.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: There are a number of powerful reasons connected with the Land Commission Bill why the House should not adjourn tomorrow. Until today the Minister of Land and Natural Resources has asserted that the first appointed day under that Measure should be 1st March, 1967. I am, therefore, grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the information that that date has been postponed. I assure him that his right hon. Friend has been wise in moving the date to 6th April, which will certainly simplify the taxation complications, particularly in regard to Capital Gains Tax.
However, whether or not that will give us time in which to deal with the outstanding complexities involved in this Measure must be a matter for doubt. The fact that the first appointed day has been put back gives me some optimism to feel that further changes in regard to this Measure may be on the way.
On the first appointed day the Land Commission will come into being, with its staff of 2,000 civil servants, its head-quarters in Newcastle and with 11 regional offices throughout the country. From that day on the Commission will exercise considerable powers over transactions involving houses, shops, factories and land.
Yesterday, I presented a petition to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources signed by 109 professional men—architects, solicitors, surveyors and accountants—practising in Birmingham and the Midland area. The grounds of their petition were that the complexities of the Land Commission Bill had caused them to ask for the Bill to be deferred because they were finding it impossible to advise their clients about the effects of the Bill. The wide-ranging consequences of the Measure must be borne in mind when considering the urgent request contained in their petition. The Land Commission will have tremendously strong powers of compulsory acquisition and, in certain circumstances, those powers could be used without reason being given.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must link his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Eyre: I must briefly mention these powers, Mr. Speaker, and I will link them directly to the Motion and explain why something must be done urgently about this issue, before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess, for in certain circumstances these powers could be used without an owner having a proper opportunity to object.
The Land Commission will be able to levy taxation on property transactions to the extent of about £80 million a year. It is becoming clear that these enormous powers will not be confined to operating upon a limited number of large land-owners but will bear on every private house-owner, as well as every factory, warehouse, office, shop and other property owner. Under the provisions of the Land Commission Bill, more than 1 million transactions affecting houses and all sorts of property will have to be registered with the Land Commission and the right to charge a levy on the proceeds of the sale of an ordinary private house will continue for six years after the date of

the transaction has been completed. This means that a person selling a house in the ordinary way will not know for six years whether or not that transaction has passed outside this liability. No wonder professional men are concerned and apprehensive.
On Third Reading of the Land Commission Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary promised that a detailed explanatory memorandum would be issued in book form, to the professions which must deal with these matters and that a simpler and shorter version would be available to the general public. No such publication has been made available and the professional men concerned have not been helped in this way.
The Bill is still under consideration and while the Leader of the House said that the first appointed day is being postponed until 6th April, the complexities of the Measure are such that that is too short a time in which to consider these matters, remembering that the Bill has yet to be placed on the Statute Book, that the explanatory memorandum has yet to be issued and that these complexities have yet to be considered by the professional men who must advise their clients on these matters.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that the Leader of the House said that 6th April of next year will be the operative date? Surely between now and then there will be ample time to prepare any necessary explanatory memoranda, leaflets and whatever other documents are needed. Why is he suggesting that the House should not adjourn tomorrow for the Christmas Recess, since that by 6th April he will have all the information he needs?

Mr. Eyre: That intervention shows how important it is that we should not adjourn until the necessary memoranda have been issued. When will the terms of the memoranda be decided? Only when the final terms of the Bill are known. They will certainly not be completed before the end of January, or even perhaps by the end of February. Even with this postponement there will be little time for people to understand the complexities of the Bill. It is precisely for this reason that the House should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess and we should consider this piece of outstanding business


which is important to every owner-occupier.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the debates on the Land Commission Bill have shown conclusively that not only the professional men outside do not understand the Measure and its ramifications but that even the Government do not understand it?

Mr. Eyre: I agree. From now on thousands of ordinary people will be contemplating property transactions for the sale of houses, shops and other property. All of those transactions, from now until 6th April—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Are not the points being raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Flail Green (Mr. Reginald Eyre) outside our normal debates on this sort of Motion? To speak about Vietnam or Rhodesia is to speak about peace and war. However, the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a machinery point and is saying that we should not recess for certain reasons connected with that point. Is not this an abuse of the purpose of this debate?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot enter into an argument between the right hon. Member and the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Eyre: I maintain that these are matters of serious practical consequence affecting every person involved in property transactions. From this moment, leading up to 6th April, there are strong reasons why the House should determine the final form of this legislation so that people may know where they stand. What are the professional advisers to say to their clients? How can they accurately forecast the consequences of legislation of this kind?
In another place, Amendments of the kind moved by the Opposition in Standing Committee many months ago are being considered and certain undertakings have been given. The purpose of these Amendments is to soften the harshness of the Bill in its effect on individual owners—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot go into the merit of those Amendments.

Mr. Eyre: They are important, Mr. Speaker, because they would soften the consequences of this harsh legislation. It is important that these matters are finalised before we recess. Safeguards could be introduced to protect the purpose of the Bill and, at the same time, protect ordinary house-owners and owner-occupiers from the fantastic complications of the Measure. In any case, the collection of the levy would far exceed the practical—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I pointed out, the hon. Member must not go into the merit of those Amendments.

Mr. Eyre: Unless this legislation is cleared up quickly, a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety will continue. It is much more important that the House should deal immediately with these important matters, rather than go into recess. For that reason I oppose the Motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Ordered,
That this House at its rising Tomorrow do adjourn until Tuesday 17th January.

LAW OF CONTEMPT (PRESS AND BROADCASTING)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of contempt in respect of the Press and broadcasting.
My modest Bill is designed to amend and clarify the law of contempt as it affects Press and broadcasting authorities. The Press is at present suffering from many ills and sicknesses. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to this matter earlier. Most of the difficulties that face the Press are, however, of too complex and deep-rooted a nature to be remedied by a simple Act of Parliament.
What my Bill would attempt to do would be to remove one of the recurring sources of irritation and anxiety from the day-to-day life of the editor and working journalist. This is an anxiety caused by the fear that he may print or broadcast something that he may genuinely feel is a matter of public concern and which may well be a matter of genuine public concern, but which may none the less cause him to be prosecuted for contempt of court and suffer severe financial and other penalties as a result.
The Bill would seek to do this not by abolishing the law of contempt, for I believe that a good law of contempt is very necessary in this country, but by attempting to define it more accurately so that journalists can know with a reasonable degree of precision what they may or may not publish. At present, I can think of very few laws which carry such severe penalties but which are so vague and ill-defined.
What is the standard definition of "contempt?" The definition which is usually relied upon is something in the following terms:
any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants, or their witnesses during the litigation.
To dissect this definition, it is clear that it involves two elements. The first is contempt in the face of the court. My Bill would not attempt to alter that in any respect. The second is contempt outside the court, which, again, brings in two categories: first, general comments in the Press and, secondly, the interviewing of witnesses and potential witnesses.
I will deal, first, with comment. Clearly, it is highly appropriate that there should be a severe limitation on comments where jury actions are concerned. It is clear that juries can be very easily influenced, and influenced adversely, by what they might read in a paper or see on television. But it is open to question whether it is right or necessary, or indeed in the interests of justice, that there should be such a strict rule about comments with regard to judges sitting alone and certainly whether there should be any limitation on comment at all with regard to tribunals of inquiry set up under the 1921 Act.
I do not dispute that contempt does apply in cases of tribunals of inquiry established under the 1921 Act. I am happy to say that because, judging by some of the less responsible comments, it might be thought that contempt of court was the invention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, egged on by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This is not so. None the less, it is appropriate to dispute whether it is right that there should be this limitation on comment with regard to tribunals of inquiry.
My reasons for saying this are as follows. First, the result of a trial is a verdict or judgment. Clearly, if a verdict or a judgment is wrong serious injustices can result. However, the result of an inquiry is a report to Parliament and Parliament has the right to debate and comment upon that report. A trial generally means trial by jury, but an inquiry under the 1921 Act is usually held by highly-qualified men who are most unlikely to be influenced by anything they read in the newspapers or see on television. A trial is conducted upon evidence confined by certain set rules of procedure, but an inquiry is competent to hear any evidence which is called in front of it, including any evidence about why or why not a particular comment was printed in a newspaper.
What is perhaps most important is that a trial is held by permanent members of a judiciary, whereas an inquiry is conducted by persons who are appointed ad hoc. In the hands of a less scrupulous Government than this one, it could be an immense advantage to nominate a safe and sound tribunal which will come to exactly the right determination. This being so, it is right and in the public interest that newspapers should have the right to comment on such appointments.
I will deal briefly with the interviewing of witnesses. There is a considerable danger that witnesses can be interfered with if they are interviewed. I need do no more than refer to the Moors case, in which there was considerable public concern, and where a newspaper attempted to buy up a potential witness. It is only right to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General acted with great liberality and tact in that case.
The 1921 Act itself does not give power to a tribunal to commit for contempt.


All it can do is to certify to the High Court that an offence has been committed, and the High Court can then deliberate and determine upon it. This is a very clumsy method of deciding contempt committed outside the face of the courts, for it is obvious that the High Court itself may come to a different decision about the contempt from that of the tribunal.
In all these circumstances, what I ask for is not a licence for the Press, but that the Press and the broadcasting authorities should be able to carry out their duties of exposing, criticising and probing more efficiently, and my proposed Bill would enable them to do that without in any way justice suffering.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Jasper More, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Peter Jackson. Mr. Mark Carlisle, and Mr. Edward Lyons.

LAW OF CONTEMPT (PRESS AND BROADCASTING)

Bill to amend the law of contempt in respect of the Press and broadcasting, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd February and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATE SUPPORT AND GENERAL GRANT)

6.53 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1966, dated 14th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
There is an accompanying Report—House of Commons Paper No. 252—which explains the considerations leading to the provision of the Order. It may be convenient to the House, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Motion, we also discuss the next Motion on the Order Paper:
That the General Grant (Increase) Order 1966, dated 9th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: If the Opposition have no objection.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We have no objection.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Because we are starting the debate late, and because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in it, I propose to speak as briefly as I can, avoiding unnecessary details, and giving as concise a description as I properly can of what The Times, on 16th December, referred to as "formulas of intimidating complexity". My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will provide any supplementary information when he replies to the debate.
The Rate Support Grant Order is the first Order to be made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act, 1966, and it may help hon. Members if I start by describing how the new grant system works. Its distinctive feature is that for the first time the aggregate of Exchequer assistance to local authorities' revenue expenditure, excluding housing subsidies, will be fixed for two years ahead and will be revised only to take account of unexpected increases in the level of pay and prices.
Part of this aggregate of Exchequer assistance is allocated for distribution through specific grants, including grants in aid of rate rebates, and the remainder is to be distributed through the medium of a new grant, known as the rate support grant.
The rate support grant is divided into three parts—the needs element, the resources element and the domestic element. The needs element may be des-scribed as an enlarged and improved general grant.
It replaces the general grant and also the specific grants hitherto paid in respect of school milk and meals, and of the maintenance of classified roads and improvement of the less important of such roads. Like the general grant, the needs element is to be distributed on the basis of objective criteria, of which population is the most important.
The resources element corresponds broadly to the present rate deficiency grants and will be payable to local authorities whose rate resources per head are below the national average.
The third element—the domestic element—is entirely new. Under the Act, local authorities are required to reduce the rates on domestic property by an amount in the £ to be fixed by the Minister, with smaller reductions in the case of mixed properties; the domestic element is intended to make good the resulting loss of revenue.
This is the broad framework. The aggregates of the rate support grants for the years 1967–68 and 1968–69 and the amounts of the three elements, the formulae for the distribution of the needs element, and the amounts of the reduction to be made in the rates on domestic properties are all determined by the first Order which is now before the House. I shall discuss them all in more detail later.
I want now, however, to retrace my steps and say something more about how the aggregate of Exchequer assistance is determined. It is this which fixes the total grant income of local authorities; everything that follows is, in a broad sense of that term, a matter of distribution.
Before determining the aggregate assistance, the Minister is required by the Act

to consider three sets of factors. The first is the current level of prices, costs, and remuneration, and the latest available information as to the rate of relevant expenditure. For this purpose relevant expenditure means all rate fund expenditure, with the exception of contributions to housing revenue accounts and trading accounts. Secondly, the Minister must have regard to any probable fluctuation in the demand for services resulting from circumstances prevailing generally in England and Wales, and not under the control of local authorities. Thirdly, he must take into consideration the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic considerations, it is reasonable to develop them.
These considerations are very much the same as those governing the fixing of the aggregate amount of the general grants, and the procedure followed is also taken from the general grant. Estimates of expenditure in terms of mid-1966 prices for the two grant years and also for 1966–67 were collected from all major authorities and a sample of county districts, and they were also asked to provide comparable figures of actual expenditure in 1964–65 and 1965–66.
The total estimated expenditure for 1967–68 was £2,662 million and for 1968–69 £2,830 million; for 1966–67 the estimate was £2,440 million. Actual expenditure on the same range of services in the two previous years, adjusted to bring the figures on to the same price basis, was £2,116 million for 1964–65 and £2,248 million for 1965–66. On a constant price basis, actual expenditure in 1965–66 was thus about 6 per cent. up on 1964–65; the estimate for the current year shows an increase of about 8½ per cent. in 1965–66, and the estimates for 1967–68 and 1968–69 show increases over the previous year of about 9 per cent. and 6¼ per cent. respectively. Taking the period 1964–65 to 1968–69 as a whole, the projected increase in expenditure is almost exactly one-third.
These large increases are much in excess of any rate of growth in the national product that the nation has been able to achieve in recent years. The level of expenditure in 1965–66 is a fact, and it is too late to do very much by way of reducing the level of expenditure in the current year. But for


1967–68 and 1968–69 we have had to ask ourselves very seriously whether we can afford the high rate of growth in local expenditure which these figures suggest; and the answer is that we cannot.
Under present circumstances, the first priority must be to strengthen the economy and improve the balance of payments. To do so we shall have to accept over the next year or two a much smaller growth in the national product than we had hoped for. Against such a background a sharp rise in public expenditure, whether central or local, would compel us to hold back private investment or cut private consumption.
We have, therefore, decided that we must try to hold local expenditure in 1967–68 and 1968–69 to a substantially lower level than that forecast. There is nearly always an element of inflation in estimates built up from a large number of returns, as these are, but eliminating that will not be enough. We must lower our sights a bit for the time being. The expenditure figures on which we have based our grant calculations are given in the Report. They are for each year about 6 per cent. below the local authority estimates. I know that these savings will no be easily achieved. They will call for more than a strict attention to economy, necessary though that is. They are bound to mean some slowing down in the development of services; but that, in our judgment, is what the situation requires. I need hardly add that they do not imply any criticism of the local authorities.
Councils are now busy examining their estimates for next year. I want to impress on them the need to scrutinise every item with particular care and to ask, "Can it wait?". I am not suggesting that there should be no development of services; the estimates of expenditure which we have accepted leave room for growth. But we must distinguish more sharply between the essential and the merely desirable.
To take one example, we must provide the schools and teachers necessary to educate our growing child population, but we can make do for a bit without some of the projected improvements to our towns and some of the amenities we are planning, much as we should all like to see them. That is the sort of distinction which we want local authorities to draw.
We have discussed our proposals with the associations of local authorities and the Greater London Council. I should be misleading the House if I did not make clear that they are very doubtful about the possibility of realising the suggested savings, and consider that we have seriously underestimated the difficulty of making changes in the pattern of expenditure. But they recognise the pressures of the economic situation and they have assured me that local authorities will, given a clear lead, co-operate to the full in restraining the growth of expenditure. I very much appreciate the spirit in which they have received our decision.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he leaves that part of his speech would he confirm that the Prime Minister's statement with regard to schools expenditure on 20th July still stands, in that the Prime Minister said that there would be no cuts in projected school expenditure?

Mr. Greenwood: I confirm that that is the case. I shall be touching on education expenditure a little later.
The totals of relevant expenditure which the Government have decided to adopt as the basis for determining the aggregate of Exchequer assistance are £2,557 million for 1967–68 and £2,726 million for 1968–69, both at mid-November prices. A distribution of these totals between the principal services is given in Appendix A of the Report. That gives some idea of the pattern of expenditure which the Government believe to be appropriate, but I must emphasise that actual expenditure on the various services will depend on the decisions of local authorities.
On that basis, we have determined the aggregate of Exchequer assistance at £1,381 million for 1967/68 and £1,499 million for 1968/69, that is to say 54 per cent. and 55 per cent. respectively of the totals of relevant expenditure I have just given. At present, Exchequer grants meet approximately 52¾ per cent. of relevant expenditure, and these increases in the percentage are in line with the Government's policy of progressively increasing the proportion of local expenditure met from grants.
How much more grant local authorities will receive than they would have received if the present system had contined will depend on how much they spend, and on what services. But if the pattern of their spending matches the figures given in Appendix A, I estimate that the extra grant will amount to £40 million for 1967/68 and £77 million for 1968/69.
As I explained earlier, the aggregate of the rate support grants is arrived at by deducting from the aggregate of Exchequer assistance the amount which it is estimated will be distributed by way of specific revenue grants. I estimate that those grants will amount to £127 million for 1967/68 and £137 million for 1968/69. The Table in Appendix B of the Report shows how the totals are built up.
Highway grants are not included in that list, because specific highway grants in future will be confined to expenditure on the improvement of principal roads. As they will be paid in capital form they do not figure here. Current expenditure on highways and street lighting will be assisted in future through the rate support grant, and so will expenditure on school milk and meals.
On the other hand, the list includes four new specific grants. Two of these—in aid of the acquisition of public open space, and of urban development—replace assistance previously given through the general grant. The grant in aid of the reclamation of derelict land makes help generally available for a purpose for which grant is at present available only in development areas. The grant to local authorities with an unusually high proportion of Commonwealth immigrants breaks fresh ground.
The aggregate of the rate support grants is, therefore, £1,254 million for 1967/68 and £1,362 million for 1968/69. The amounts of the three elements for the two grant years are specified in article 3 of the Order. The domestic element, to take the smallest first, is £23 million for 1967/68 and £47 million for 1968/69. The corresponding reductions which local authorities are required to make in the rates levied on domestic properties are fixed at 5d. for the first year and 10d. for the second. Taking England and Wales

as a whole, this relief is equivalent to nearly half the average annual increase in rate poundage since revaluation.
The second element in the rate support grant is the resources element, which corresponds to the present rate deficiency grant. The amounts of the resources element are fixed by the Order at £204 million for 1967–68 and £217 million for 1968–69. These sums are what we estimate would have been payable by way of rate deficiency grants if all the other grant changes had been made—but rate deficiency grants retained—and local authorities had incurred relevant expenditure equal to the accepted estimates.
The needs element takes the remainder of the rate support grant, amounting to £1,027 million for 1967–68 and £1,098 million for 1968–69. These amounts represent, in effect, what would otherwise have been payable by way of general grant and discontinued specific grants, together with that part of the extra grant not absorbed by the domestic element or the new specific grants.
The formula for distributing the needs element, which occupies the remainder of the Order, is closely modelled on that for the general grant. The factors are, for the most part, the same and the relative weight they carry is much the same. Nearly two-thirds of the money is to be distributed on the basis of so much per head of population, but there are two big changes to which I should draw the attention of the House.
The first is the introduction of a new factor to distribute part of the grant on the basis of mileage of principal and other roads. This is a result of the decision that Exchequer assistance towards the maintenance of roads and the improvement of roads other than principal roads should be channelled in future through the rate support grant.
The second big change is in the education factor, which ensures that local authorities with a bigger education load get a bigger share of the grant. Under the general grant, what the individual authority received depended simply on the number of its primary and secondary school children. Under the new system of education units, the numbers of pupils and students at the different stages of education will be weighted in rough proportion to their average cost and account


will also be taken of the number of school meals supplied.
The distribution formula carries a fair measure of agreement among local authorities generally, although there are of course, inevitably those who lose by the changes and others who would like to see further changes made to deal with their particular problem. We shall watch the working of the formula very carefully and if experience shows that changes are needed there is power to introduce them in the next rate support grant Order.

Sir Edward Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave concern among education authorities at the total amounts provided for in the Orders? The figure I have been given is that the rate for education over the country as a whole would have to go up by 10 per cent. even if we just stood still, with no element for improvement whatever. The three aspects about which grave concern is expressed are the question of hook allowances for schools, discretionary awards for higher education and the training of technicians and the consequences of the Industrial Training Act. If the right hon. Gentleman still occupied the position he held in 1960 on this side of the House—the position which I now hold—he would have been the first to be intensely critical of this Order.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into the rather detailed points he made. On a constant price basis, the education figures, including meals and milk, as I have mentioned, show a rise of 6 per cent. between 1965–66 and 1966–67. The authorities' original forecast gave rises of 9·2 per cent. between 1966–67 and 1967–68 and 6 per cent. between 1967–68 and 1968–69. The figures accepted after negotiation show rises of just over 5·8 per cent. between 1966–67 and 1967–68 and between 1967–68 and 1968–69. This compares with an increase of 2·6 per cent. and 6·1 per cent. in the totals for all services. So I do not think that it can be said that the development of education is being held back by the financial estimates we have accepted for grant purposes.

Sir E. Boyle: How can the right hon. Gentleman be sure that this percentage will be devoted to education under the

new arrangements? It may well happen that, at local level, education will not give it the same priority for grant expenditure and that rate expenditure will have to rise correspondingly. Indeed, the whole rationale of the general grant system we introduced was that the present situation could not arise because the Government would pay due regard to the estimates of relevant expenditure brought forward by the local authorities.

Mr. Greenwood: There is, on the other hand, the power of the Department of Education and Science to make sure that a high standard of education is maintained. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he wants local government to function, it must have a wide range of choice. Under these proposals that we have accepted there will be a great deal of scope for them to extend the education system during the next two years.
I want to complete what I was about to say, because it is important to get this clearly on the record.

Mr. Rippon: rose—

Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait to deploy his case later in the debate, because I want now to say a word about the General Grant (Increase) Order.
This takes account of increases in pay and costs on general grant services which have taken place since the last increase Order a year ago. The largest item of increase relates to an actuarial adjustment to teachers' superannuation. The figures in the Order are agreed with the local authority associations.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am sure that the House would like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced these two Orders. He has tried—and I am not too surprised by it—to keep the temperature down as far as possible and to make these Orders sound as dull as he could. At the same time, he has shown that he can swim strongly through the muddy waters. He is probably wise to leave some of the more detailed questions to his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I shall rely on my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple). Both my hon. Friend and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary know more about these matters than anyone else in the House.
It is very important, however, that laymen should not be overwhelmed by these mathematical calculations and complexities. Everyone was delighted when the Postmaster-General the other day said that he believed in Santa Claus. Unfortunately, as far as the ratepayers are concerned, the effect of these two Orders is that the Government have shot Santa Claus straight between the eyes. When one strips away all the technicalities with which the right hon. Gentleman presented the Orders to us, what they mean is that next year the ratepayer will receive the largest rate bill in his life, and in the year following as well, and probably in the year after that.
Probably the rates will rise by about 10 per cent., or £120 million. When I wanted to intervene towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it was on the point that there has in fact been no agreement about these proposals. There has been no agreement on the basis on which the Government's figures are presented. It is irrelvant, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) pointed out, to talk about percentage increases which may or may not take place in education expenditure on the basis of the figures which the Government have presented, because those figures are not accepted.
I want to try and put the Orders in perspective against the background of the Government's promises and their programmes in relation to local government expenditure and the growing burden upon the ratepayers. The great mortgage fraud of last week is followed this week by the great fraud upon the ratepayers. The substantial gap between the Government's election promises and the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1966, is already on record. So, too, is the fact that a Conservative Government would have made far more generous provision to relieve ratepayers. I do not want to repeat that today, because it is not necessary and does not arise directly under these Orders.
What is not disputed and has never been disputed by hon. Members opposite is that rates will rise next year by about 10 per cent. and that the average rate-payer will have the highest bill in his life. All the relief to the domestic ratepayer amounts to, as the Minister himself says,

is only half the anticipated increase in the average increased rate demand. That is an Irishman's cut, if you like, Mr. Speaker.
But, of course, there will be wide variations between one area and another and between one local authority and another and for the moment this is the riddle wrapped in the enigma. We might have to return to the charge against the Minister and the Government when we know, but at the moment we do not know exactly how individual areas will be affected.
Certainly these two Orders must be understood by the House and the public to represent a very severe setback to any hopes which the ratepayers had of early relief. Under the Local Government Act, 1958, the Government are bound to meet their obligations to grant increases for certain specified purposes, and the General Grant Increase Order, as the Minister has said, is based on that procedure. There is no dispute about this and I will not say more about it.
Tonight, we need to concentrate on the Rate Support Grant Order which is made by the Minister in the exercise of his powers under Section 2 of the 1966 Act. We would all like to thank the Minister for the very full report which he has laid before the House in association with the Rate Support Grant Order. It has been extremely helpful. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester would like to join with me in thanking both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the readiness with which they have endeavoured to give us as much notice about the Government's proposals as was possible in all the circumstances.
The Minister said that the declared purpose of the Act was to shift the balance of expenditure from rates to taxes by 1 per cent. per annum. That is what his predecessor kept telling the House and it is to that that the Minister reverted tonight. But that can be brought about only if there is agreement on the estimated expenditure on which the Government grants are based, otherwise it is—and everybody in the House knows that I use these words with care and moderation—a fraud on the ratepayers. Paragraph 3 of the Order fixes the aggregate amount of Exchequer grants at £1,381 million for 1967–68 and £1,499 million for 1968–69.


These figures, according to paragraph 11 of the Minister's report, represent respectively 54 and 55 per cent. of what is described as the "accepted relevant expenditure."
Naturally, there are always discussions, and often disputes, with local authority associations about the estimates on which Government grants are based, but I believe that this is the very first time when the figures on which the Government's share is calculated have been disputed at the end of the day. Therefore, on this occasion we have a situation in which it can be said of the so-called "accepted relevant expenditure" that it is neither accepted nor relevant. It is not accepted or relevant not only because the Government have not agreed the local authorities' estimates of expenditure—there might be room for dispute there—but because their decisions are deliberately based on what is quite manifestly the wrong set of figures.
The report shows that in 1967–68 local authorities are to get £105 million less than they estimated they required and £104 million less in 1968–69. But paragraph 7 of the report says:
The estimates were based on the level of prices, costs and remuneration at 30th June, 1966.
As the local authorities have been quick to point out, while the original estimates put before the Ministry were necessarily in terms of June, 1966 prices, the final figures fixed by the Government are supposed to take into account, as they always have in the past, all increases in prices and remuneration and so on since the end of June. Consequently, it has been asserted—and I have no reason to dispute it—that the real cut in local authority spending plans is not far short of £160 million next year. While the Minister's report says in paragraph 9:
Allowance has been made for the fact that actual expenditure is likely to fall some way short of estimate 
there seems to be not the slightest evidence to be found anywhere in support of that assertion.
In calculating this relevant expenditure, it is clearly vital to begin with the right base. Otherwise, all this talk of percentage increase has no meaning. Yet it appears that the Government have preferred to work in this case quite arbitrarily on the basis of actual expendi-

ture in 1965–66 rather than on the estimated expenditure for 1966–67 which is now virtually known. Surely the Minister must agree that the 1966–67 position must be a clearer guide to future expenditure and commitments.
All one can say is that this is hardly a happy augury for the start of the new rate support system. In so far as the Government are paying this agreed percentage of grant, the 54 and 55 per cent. in the two years, respectively, not on what the local authorities will be spending, but on an artificially low estimate, the ratepayer will have to make up the difference, or the services will have to be cut. These are the only alternatives.
Clearly, at a time of economic difficulty—and heaven knows that no one disputes that this is such a time—local authorities must accept their share of financial stringency. But can the local authorities, with all the good will in the world, cut back their expenditure as the Government expect them to do for the current year? The Minister admitted that there were difficulties about that. But can they, with rate estimates for 1967–68 in active preparation if not actually completed, cut back in 1967–68 to the extent that the Government are demanding, that is, to the extent in effect of about £160 million'?
One thing which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify in his mopping-up operation when dealing with what has been taken into account in assessing the grant is the extraordinary statement made by the Minister Without Portfolio in another place on 28th November. In the Committee stage of the Land Commission Bill, having said that the betterment levy would be collected by the Commission and paid to the Exchequer, he went on to say:
…"I hasten to add that the Exchequer has taken into consideration the expected yield of £80 million in deciding on the additional grants to be paid under the Local Government Bill, so that already to a large extent the amount of money which will be collected by this process of levy on private transactions will be going to the very things to which my noble friend has suggested it ought to be going."—[OFF ICI AL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th November, 1966; Vol. 278, c. 491.]
I would be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us just what that means. How has this allowance been made and in what way and how much are the local authorities assumed to be getting from this source?
As I said, whatever happens, the ratepayers or the services will suffer. Let the public make no mistake about who is to blame. The blame lies entirely on the Government. The White Paper itself in paragraph 9 says:
It is clear that over the two years ahead the rate of growth of the economy will fall short of that postulated in the National Plan and in this situation the growth of public expenditure must be restrained to prevent it pre-empting too large a share of the national product.
Well, well! Truth will out—at any rate, in time. The House will recall that on 30th March this year, two days before the General Election, the Prime Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition how he proposed to pay for his programme which was based on a growth rate of 4 per cent.—and these are my right hon. Friend's words—
now that it is absolutely apparent that that growth rate is not going to be achieved".
The Prime Minister replied, and I quote his words as reported in The Times of 30th March—
It is only apparent to Mr. Heath; it is not apparent to us. We shall pay for our programmes out of the provision in the National Plan involving a growth rate of 4 per cent. The National Plan stands and we intend to fulfil it.
In paragraph 9 of the Minister's Report, the Minister made it perfectly clear that the Government will not. I hope the Minister checked with the Prime Minister before he wrote that paragraph. No doubt, if we asked the Prime Minister at Question Time whether the pledge still stood, he would say, "Yes".
The House will note this categorical assurance from the Prime Minister came two days before the General Election and after the Labour Government had been in office for about 16 months. So there are no alibis this time, as the Daily Mirror assured us, and no one else to blame.
Once again the Government have been caught making a pledge only to break it within months. I can well imagine the reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if a Conservative Government had cut local authority expenditure by anything like the extent which is now being insisted upon. Paragraph 9 of the Report says that the failure over the

two years ahead to fulfil the National Plan will
require, not merely the utmost economy in all branches of administration, but also some slowing of the development of some services.
In fact, it now looks as if there must be not merely a slowing down of the rate of development, but an actual cutting back of the services. The difficulty is that any substantial cut-back of local authority expenditure is always a long-term exercise. With loan charges now at higher rates of interest and beginning to be felt in relation to projects that were commissioned, say, three years ago, and with schools being built that need staff which the Minister said we must have, how are these cuts to be made? These commitments cannot be cut. Certainly, the start of various future programmes can be slowed down, and the Minister referred to town centre and urban redevelopment. Those have already been slowed down, but it is difficult to see how cuts of the order of £160 million can be achieved in the near future.
The table on page 11 of the Report shows the reduced total of £2,557 million of local government expenditure, which is, of course, at June prices. It shows how that is made up in terms of expenditure on education, on health, welfare, police, child care, and so on. What we really need to be told by the Parliamentary Secretary is by how much local council spending on each of these items—on education, on health, welfare, police, child care and so on—has been cut. Perhaps in winding up he will give us this information.
As it is, Section B of the Report, headed "Development of Services" may well mislead both the House and the country into the impression that the expansion of major services can still go ahead under the grants as given in these Orders. Paragraph 13 of the Report says:
Development of the Education service, including the school meals and milk services, will lead to a steady increase in expenditure.
It goes on, in paragraph 14, to say:
Numbers will increase in every sector of the service.
But education accounts for more than half of the total expenditure of the counties and the county boroughs. Who


is to pay for these increases in the light of the cuts that have been imposed by the Government?
According to Sir William Alexander, secretary of the Association of Education Committees, reporting in the Observer on 18th December,
Either rates will have to go up more sharply than the Government intend or it will not be possible for local education authorities to carry out the policies which the Government have laid down.
That is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth was making. As Sir William pointed out, the great bulk of education expenditure is irreducible. Teachers' salaries, loan charges, salaries of non-teaching staff, major awards to universities, which local education authorities have to pay under statute, are irreducible. Where are the cuts to be made? Is the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970 to be deferred, or will there be some slowing down in further education? The House is entitled to know whether that is the Government's intention. It is important to establish that whatever happens is the responsibility of the Government. They cannot shuffle off this responsibility. They can not put the onus on local education authorities to make these cuts because they have not got the money or because they cannot comply with requirements which we think are unreasonable.
Do the Government agree with Sir William's assessment, which my right hon. Friend supported this afternoon, that to keep the policies intact with the grants now announced there will have to be a 10 per cent. increase in the rates for education? Or will it be more, as I myself suspect?
In this connection, we would like to know what has happened to another of the Government's election pledges. On page 14 of the Labour Party's 1964 election manifesto, just after the categorical pledge about "early relief to ratepayers", there is an equally categorical pledge to
transfer the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer".
This obviously refers, and it was taken by everyone to refer, to that part of the cost now falling on the rates. Yet judging by his reply at Question Time on 6th December, the Minister does not even

know that the pledge was given, because he answered rather blandly by saying,
The larger part is borne by the Exchequer ".
I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity to clarify the position. Does the pledge still stand, or has it now been abandoned? I will give way to the Minister now if he likes. Is it abandoned? Will he tell us? [HON. MEMBERS: "Silence."] We can draw our inferences from the Minister's silence. Perhaps that is one of the "odds and ends" which he is leaving to the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up at the end of the debate. He has certainly given the impression that he does not know what pledges have been given by the Government or by the Prime Minister on teachers' salaries, the National Plan, or anything else. There have been so many pledges given and broken that it is hard to keep up with them.
Apart from the dangerous cuts in Civil Defence which the House heard about recently, the Government appear to rely largely on cuts being made under the heading of "General administration and miscellaneous." It is certainly a matter for grave concern that the staffs of local authorities have risen by over 150,000 since October, 1964.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] My hon. Friend asks, "Why?". It is mainly because of the extra statutory duties cast upon them. They are part of the extra administrative burden generated right down through the whole economy by 26.000 additional civil servants. The Prime Minister seemed to think at Question Time that this was a very productive exercise. The ratepayers will not think that, or the taxpayers when we come to the next Budget.
In its 1964 election manifesto the Labour Party promised that it would end what is called
the present parsimony in the supply of public funds
for recreation, the youth service, and so on. It is these items—town planning, clean air, improvement grants, and the like, with which the Minister should be very much concerned, which are the chief candidates for the chopper.
Here again, it is for the Government to say quite clearly and definitely, now that they expect local authorities, who the Minister says have asked for a clear


lead to cut down on these matters, and to explain by how much. The decisions have to be taken by the Government They cannot be taken simply by local authorities, who have been encouraged by the Labour Party's election promises to think that the green light has shone and that they can go ahead. Unfortunately, some of them have gone ahead. Now the Minister tells them to stop. But it is too late.
All this is a very far cry from the days when hon. Members opposite were going about the country and saying, "All you need is a Labour Government. Things will be much easier for the local authorites. Interest rates will be lower. Exchequer grants will be bigger. A larger part of the burden of local expenditure will fall on the Exchequer and be taken from the ratepayers". It has not happened. We have to aprove these Orders tonight because, without them, the local authorities would have nothing from the Exchequer. But we call upon the Government to give a clear assurance that they will review the situation if, as we fear, the estimates on which these Orders are based prove to be unrealistically low, with a disproportionately higher burden imposed on the long-suffering ratepayers.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Davies: I am particularly glad to take part in this debate because the county council for the constituency which I have the honour to represent has for some time felt great concern about the possible effect upon it of the new Local Government Act, and I fear that, to a considerable extent, the Order supports that concern.
Before dealing with the particular case of the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council, the area of which comprises the City of Cambridge, I have some general comments to make. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when he says that the cuts in local authority estimates are greater than would appear from a comparison of the figures in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Paper, for the simple reason that they are not strictly comparable in that the local authority estimates here quoted are at June, 1966, prices whereas the figures given in paragraph 10 are, I understand—the right

hon. and learned Gentleman confirmed this—at November prices.
One comparison gives figures of cuts of £105 million in 1967–68 and £104 million in 1968–69, but put on the same basis and taken with local authority estimates at November, 1966, prices, the cuts are about £161 million in 1967–68 and £176 million in 1968–69.
Paragraph 11 of the Paper refers to the percentage of local authority expenditure met by Exchequer grant, namely, 54 per cent. of relevant local authority expenditure in 1967–68 and 55 per cent. in 1968–69. However, if one notes that the figures quoted for local authority estimates in paragraph 9 are at June prices, one finds that the percentage can be somewhat different. The global amount of Exchequer grant of £1,381 million in 1967–68 and £1,499 million in 1968–69 are as a percentage of accepted relevant expenditure 54 and 55 per cent.
I have taken the figures to be correct, but perhaps I should have checked them—but if one compares them with the local authorities' forecast at June, 1966, prices, they are seen to be considerably less, about 51 per cent. and 53 per cent. of their estimates of expenditure at June prices. If one goes further and compares them—I think that this is the correct basis—with the local authorities' own estimates for 1967–68 and 1968–69 at November prices, the global Exchequer grants are seen to be only about 50 per cent. of those figures in both 1967–68 and 1968–69.
I fear that local authorities will have considerable difficulty in cutting their estimates without having to cut their services, because I believe that their forecasts were not unreasonable and they did their best to give accurate and reasonable forecasts. I appreciate that, in present circumstances, there must be a slowing down in the expansion of services, but I fear that this may well lead to a standstill in these services, if not to some reduction, if local authorities are to avoid an increase in rate-borne expenditure in 1967–68 and 1968–69.
Paragraph 11 of the Paper tells us that it is estimated that local authorities will receive about £40 million more in grants for 1967–68 and £77 million more for 1968–69 than they would have received had the present system continued, and the Minister referred to this point in his


speech. It should be remembered, however, that not all local authorities will benefit equally. Moreover, out of the £40 million extra in grant for 1967–68 £23 million is accounted for by the domestic element, and the highways and supplementary grant to the G.L.C. and county boroughs absorbs, I understand, a further £11 million. Thus, out of the £40 million one is left with only £6 million, and part of this, if not the whole, may well be taken up by increases in specific grants. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about this when he replies to the debate.
The Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council has for long felt great concern about its share of Exchequer grant, and it has in the past been extremely dissatisfied with the situation under the 1958 Act. Unfortunately, as paragraph 39 of the Paper makes plain, the distribution formula for the needs element is modelled on that for the general grant. This, I believe, is partly the burden of my authority's complaint. It has always felt that the general grant affected it adversely.
The Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council has for years contended that the introduction of the general grant under the 1958 Act in place of major percentage grants has cost the present county council and its predecessor, the Cambridgeshire County Council, upwards of £250,000 a year in reduction of grant which it would previously have received under the earlier Act, and it has consistently objected to this formula, which, unfortunately, is continued in the present Act and given effect by the Order.
Under the present formula, the needs element for Cambridgeshire is, so I am advised by the county council, among the lowest per head in England, and it is at least £1 per head less than the average. A deficiency in the needs element of at least £1 a head, which is to be continued under the new formula, will involve, so this authority believes, a loss of not far short of £300,000 a year. The estimate at the moment is upwards of £291,000. This is equivalent to a rate of 6d. in the £, of which probably 3d. in the £ would be borne by the ratepayers in my own constituency of Cambridge.
There is a special loss which is peculiar to Cambridgeshire and to Cambridge and Oxford, although it is offset in the case

of Oxford, due to the inclusion of transient or extraneous university population of 9,000 to 10,000 for the purposes of determining the supplementary grant for education units. This is calculated by the authority to be likely to lead to a further loss of up to £150,000 in grant. This is offset in the case of Oxford by reason of the fact that Oxford, unlike Cambridge, has higher than average rating resources, whereas Cambridgeshire, including the City of Cambridge, has only average rating resources.
Many of the formulae and calculations in the Grant Order are extremely hard to comprehend and I find it hard to evaluate these arguments. I very much hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will feel able to give an assurance that he will have regard to the adverse possibility, which the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council believe to be a reality, that it will be seriously and adversely affected by the Order and that my hon. Friend will give an undertaking to enter into discussions with the authority in case rectification is possible.

7.53 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Robert Davies) in the views which he has expressed, because the county in which his constituency lies is adversely affected by the Order and as I shall show the county of which I am a representative is even worse affected.
This Rate Support Grant Order confirms lamentably the fears which I expressed during the passage of the Local Government Act, 1966. The change from the present arrangements under the general grant system to the new system which is now proposed will mean a rise in rates in my constituency of between 2s. 3d. and 2s. 9d. in the £. That is a very serious matter. It is especially serious for those constituents who can least afford to pay such increases.
This increase comes at a time when, as the Minister well knows, many of my constituents already complain of the high level of rates under the present system. That applies especially to those ratepayers who live in houses built during the last five years, which includes the people who have come to our county under town development schemes.
During the Report stage of the Act, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tried to mollify me somewhat by saying that the average rates paid by my constituents were about £40 a year. I was not in a position to challenge that when the hon. Gentleman said it, but inquiries which I have since made have convinced me that this figure was both out of date and misleading. I do not accuse him of intentionally misleading—I know him so well that I know he never would—but I consider that the figure of £40 is out of date because it is clear that people living on our new housing estates are paying £50 to £60 a year in rates, and now they will have to pay this large increase of at least 2s. 3d. in the £ and possibly as much as 2s. 9d. This is a result of Government policy, in spite of the Government's pledge to give early relief to ratepayers. It is a deplorable situation, and the Government must be held responsible for it.
To maintain the standard of essential services to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred and which are expected, rightly so, by the Government, by Parliament and by the people—and services which, incidentally, are perhaps lower at the standards being operated than is really desirable—and to provide them for the increasing population which we are getting, the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough will have to spend £1 million more in the coming financial year than in the present financial year. It will get only between £100,000 and £200,000 of that extra £1 million from the grant proposals which are now before us. That will leave an additional amount of expenditure of at least £800,000 to be found by the ratepayers. This is on top of all the extra tax burdens which the Government have imposed. What a Christmas present! What a price to pay for 2¼ years of Socialist Labour Government!
On 14th December, the Minister wrote to me in response to a petition which I had sent to him from ratepayers in my constituency requesting a rate freeze. I recognise the substance of the Minister's arguments against a rate freeze and I understand the reasons he has given for not having one, in the conclusion of his letter, however, after referring to the hope that economies would be made, the Minister said this:

I am sure, therefore, that any rise in rates next year will be kept to the bare minimum"—
a bare minimum of 2s. 3d. in the £—
and, in addition, the provisions of the Local Government Bill will help to keep down the rates for householders; but no one can say that there will not be a rise at all. I shall, of course, continue to bear in mind your comments on the possible effects of town development schemes.
I am at least grateful for that hope for the future. No words of mine are necessary, however, to point out the irony of what the Minister wrote to me last week now that we know how the Order will affect the ratepayers in my constituency.
On a number of occasions this year I have warned the Minister and his predecessor and the Parliamentary Secretary of the bad effect which this new rate support system would have on rapidly-expanding communities in largely rural counties. It is now obvious that the pleas which I made fell on deaf ears, or possibly, as an alternative, that the Minister was so anxious to give still further help to cities, which have much higher rateable values than we have, that he does not care about counties like ours, which are doing their best in the national interest to relieve the overcrowding in those cities and to achieve a better distribution of population. In return for our efforts under the town development schemes, however, such counties are now reaping a miserable reward.
I cannot but feel strongly about this. I cannot but feel strongly because of the pleas which I have made and because of the pledges and the pretensions which the Government have put forward from time to time. This is a most regrettable evening in this House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My intervention in this debate will be a very brief one indeed. The formulae for calculation of grant are of so complex a nature as to demand a very high degree of mathematical skill which is not to be found among most laymen. From time to time politicians are accused of being desiccated calculating machines, but I doubt whether, even if that were true, they would at the drop of a hat be able to tell their local authorities whether this change in the financial structure of support would be to their advantage or disadvantage.
There is among local authorities an understandable feeling of disquiet and uncertainty with regard to the future, and my County Council of Cardigan is certainly no exception to that rule. I would stress this point with regard to my constituency, that there is such an imbalance in the economic structure, whereunder only 6 per cent. of the population are engaged in manufacturing industry and 83 per cent. of the population in service industry, that there are some very real fears indeed that there may well be here an anomalous situation which may not conform to the average pattern and which to those who drafted this legislation might well have appeared as a result of the spot checks which were made in some 10 per cent. of the county districts. There is fear that this may be the case.
I would, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would give me the assurance, that the total amount of grant received in my constituency in the years 1967–68 and 1968–69 will be at least equivalent to the support which is received at the present moment, and in addition to that, that there will be an adequate sum for increased expenditure, bearing in mind the average level of such increases and also remembering, with regard to a county like Cardigan, that there are often heavy pressures upon it to bring its services up to the very minimum which is required if it is to carry out its statutory obligations.
Secondly, I would ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary whether he would be able to give some indication as to the amount of the resources grant—if he can tell us when information can be given to councils of that amount. To a local authority like the County Council of Cardigan it is of the utmost importance when it is working to a very strict budget, and when it is planning—even in the short term, and certainly for the long term—that there should be at the earliest possible moment such information given to it.
I would be most grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman if he could give me the assurance for which I ask, and some information about the resources grant.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move,
That the debate be now adjourned.

I think it quite disgraceful that the Minister should come to the House and ask the House to pass an Order involving no less than £2,600 million of public money, equivalent to 6s. 6d. in the standard rate of Income Tax over two years, before that Order has been considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee.
It is absolutely scandalous that this enormous sum of money should be voted—that it should be debated—tonight, when we do not even know whether the Order is defective or not. Moreover, if the Order is found to be defective the House will already have taken a decision upon it.
I have done a certain amount of research this afternoon and I know of no case where a Minister has ever come to the House for anything approaching this colossal sum of money without its having been cleared by the Statutory Instruments Committee, and yet this is the invitation which is put before the House tonight. Moreover, of course, the Select Committee has not even had an opportunity to consider it. It is not that the Committee has fallen down on its task. The Minister did not arrange for the Act to be printed and available until 10 o'clock yesterday morning; it was not until 10 o'clock yesterday that the Act was available; and, of course, the Select Committee could not possibly deal with it before.
This is the way the Government have organised their business in a matter concerning £2,600 million of public money. It is shattering; it is a desperately bad way of treating the House of Commons, seriously to invite it to debate the merits of an Order of this kind rushed through in this way. The Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member moved the Adjournment of the debate. I think that it would be for his convenience and that of the House if I announced that I am unable to accept that Motion.
It is perfectly in order for a Statutory Instrument to be discussed even before it has been to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Therefore, I am unable to accept this as a reason for exercising the discretion of the Chair in accepting such an Adjournment Motion. The hon. Member is perfectly in order in


adducing this as an argument for the rejection of the Order, but I cannot accept his Motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point I was trying to make is that we are not in a position to know whether we can accept or reject the Order till we know whether or not it is defective. That we do not know. It is certainly agreed that an Order is needed, or there will not be any funds for local authorities. I was not suggesting that it was out of order for the Government to do what they are doing, merely that it is a disgraceful thing for them to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only say to the hon. Member that I have announced the decision of the Chair, to enable him to address himself more closely to the Order, and not to his Motion, which I have to reject.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This puts the House now in an intolerable position—to debate the merits of an Order which may be defective. The Minister cannot tell that it is not defective. It has not been considered by the Select Committee, to decide whether it is. It cannot be amended by the House because there is no procedure for doing so. Therefore, we are left in the impossible position where we are asked to approve—because otherwise there is no money for local authorities at all—£2,600 million on an Order which cannot be amended and may be defective. This is truly an extraordinary proposition which the Government are putting to us tonight.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Obviously, my hon. Friend has studied this. It would be a great help to many of us if he could tell us what the consequences would be if the Order were, in fact, found to be defective, and what the effects on local authorities and their planning would be.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How I wish that I could give my hon. Friend a description of what would happen. There would be a truly remarkable situation. The House of Commons would have passed the Order; the Statutory Instruments Committee might then report the Order to be

defective; but if it reported it to be defective, I cannot imagine what redress would be available to the House, which would, anyway, by tomorrow afternoon have gone into recess.
This brings out all the more reason for the Government's withdrawing this Order for tonight. Since the debate is not to be adjourned, could the Order not be withdrawn and reintroduced by the Government when we know whether or not it does meet with the minimum requirements of the Statutory Instruments Committee? If the Government maintain the opposite proposition, they are saying in effect that the Statutory Instruments Committee is a purposeless body and that it is a pure procedural charade to submit Statutory Instruments to it. If they think that, why do they not do something about it? Presumably they do not think that.
It is not unprecedented to have an Order considered on the Floor of the House on which the Statutory Instruments Committee has not yet reported, but this Order deals with a sum of money of enormous magnitude, and it has an immediate effect on every ratepayer in the country. It affects not only ratepayers, but children at school, and people in receipt of welfare services. It goes right to the heart of the life of just about every person in the country, even those well under voting age. To treat this Order in such a cavalier manner and then to propose that the House goes into recess tomorrow not knowing whether the Order is defective or not is such an extraordinary way of treating the House of Commons that only the present Government would have thought of doing it.
When one comes to the specific details of what is offered to us as a potentially valid Order, we are in considerable difficulty. The Act only came out at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and this immensely complicated Order has been available only since the 14th of this month, when it was laid upon the Table. It is extremely difficult to calculate what the specific effects will be in the areas from which individually we come. I say "areas" because the county areas are very much larger than any single constituency.
When one thinks of the promises that have been made in the last two years


by Ministers as a result of many actions which they have taken, including altering local government boundaries, that no hardship will fall on the ratepayer, and then when one sees the likely consequences of this Order if it is passed, many of those promises will prove to be just as hollow as many of the Labour Party's election promises have already.
If anyone would care to tell the Minister what has been said, since he does not bother to be present in the Chamber for this short debate, I ask him to withdraw the Order. By all means bring it before the House again tomorrow, but I ask him to withdraw it now if for no other reason than that it is a quite intolerable precedent for the wholesale authorisation of public expenditure to do it in this manner. I know of no stronger way of protesting against this grotesque practice than in the words which I have used.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: It is axiomatic that local government should be facing difficulties during the next two or three years, arising as much from structural difficulties as from the geographical areas which are now being reviewed by the Maude Commission. They are difficulties which are made all the more difficult by the present economic situation, and certainly by the measures taken on 20th July, but I do not think that it comes very well from hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to contract out of their share of responsibility for what has arisen since we assumed power, which has led to the cut in local government grant from the Government.
Town halls all over the country will be facing a difficult winter and perhaps a difficult two years in view of the fact that what they anticipated from the Government White Paper in respect of the rate support grant will not come up to expectation. I believe that that will greatly affect my own London Borough of Havering, which is a new borough on the fringes of London.
Although it is really a subsidiary matter, there is one point of some relevance which I should like to raise. If, increasingly, we are to put heavier burdens on local authorities in education and allied areas of activity, we must have a greater sharing of financial respon-

sibility—not just from the Treasury and the Government, but, rather, from within the local authorities themselves. In that connection, I refer to the rate equalisation schemes. The Westminster City Council, which is one of the Inner London authorities, has a rateable value of about £104 million. That is, equal to the rateable values of Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham added together.
The present scheme, which has been in operation in one form or another roughtly from 1867, although it has had many refinements made to it, has operated in allowing the wealthier boroughs to assist the less wealthy. At present, the outer fringe boroughs like the London Borough of Havering are not receiving the assistance from the London Equalisation Scheme to which they are entitled.
The matter was referred to in paragraph 955 of the Royal Commission's Report. It says:
This raises the question whether a new scheme should he introduced to take the place of the London Rate Equalisation Scheme and, if so, whether it should apply over the whole area of the Council for Greater London or whether its application should be limited to the present area of the Administrative County of London.
Under the Local Government Act, 1963, the Minister has power already to allow this equalisation scheme to apply to the outer London boroughs, and here I refer to Section 66(1) of the London Government Act, 1963, dealing with the equalisation of rates, which says:
The Minister may, subject to and in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section, make as respects the whole or any part or parts of Greater London a scheme or schemes for the purpose of reducing disparities in the rates levied in different rating areas of Greater London other than the Temples.
I respectfully submit that local authorities on the fringes of London would accept their disappointment arising from the grant scheme if they could feel that there was a sharing of responsibility throughout the whole of the London area.

Mr. Temple: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the new formulae under the Rate Support Order, the present Government have done away with the rate product reduction factor and, therefore, helped the wealthier authorities to the detriment of the less wealthy authorities in London?

Mr. Williams: There is, in fact, an equalisation provision. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) is wrong.
I should like to finish by saying that the new boroughs which were created by the previous Administration face enormous difficulties.

Mr. Temple: rose—

Mr. Williams: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong.

Mr. Williams: No, I will not give way again.
During the coming months, they will be faced with agonising decisions whether to cut back drastically on plans which they have already drawn up or whether to increase rates dramatically. That will be an agonising choice. It will be taken all the easier if they know that the sharing of the burden will be equal on all London boroughs.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) had it about right when he described this Order as the great fraud. It is one of the many frauds being perpetrated by the Government, and I feel sure that in due course they will pay the price for it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister admitted that some authorities would lose under the provisions of this Order, and I represent one of them. He went on to say that there was a broad measure of agreement among local authorities. I rather think that this is a case where perhaps, on a domestic matter in this country, we are breaking what has now become quite a famous principle, the sixth principle, in a now famous international dispute—no oppression of the majority by the minority, or of the minority by the majority. I think that we are in breach of that with this Order, and I am very glad that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Robert Davies) assisted me in putting the case for the County of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, which is one of the authorities in the minority to which I have just referred.
During the debates on the Local Government Bill I represented how the effect of this new system of grant for Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely would be detrimental to the ratepayers and not beneficial, and I explained and admitted how bitterly Cambridgeshire felt about the way in which the 1958 Act was beginning to work out, how they were approximately £250,000 a year worse off than they otherwise would be, and how strongly Cambridgeshire had represented the need for changing the then system in any event. Hon. Members will, therefore, understand how disappointed we are when we see in paragraph 39 that the distribution formula is to be modelled on the general grant. I regret that the existing unsatisfactory formula is to remain the foundation of the new one.
Paragraph 39 goes on to talk about changes which have to be made in that basic distribution formula to take account of certain facts. These changes make the position worse, and not better, for they include, for instance, the provision about highways, which will certainly reflect adversely on the finances of county councils. Therefore, I say that the basis of calculating the needs element ought not to be accepted in its present form.
In paragraph 11, referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge, we see that local authorities will receive £40 million more in grants for 1967–68 than they would have received had the present system continued. It sounds marvellous until one begins to work out what it means. It means, in fact, that the county councils will be worse off. The hon. Member for Cambridge explained how that would be so, and I look forward to hearing how the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reconciles those two opposites.
Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely are particularly hard hit, because the county rate in the £ for the current year is already the third highest in the country. The reason for that is that the general grant per head of the population is so low, and under the new formula the needs element for this county is amongst the lowest, more than £1 per head less than the average. There are five other counties similarly placed, but at least three of these have more than average rating resources, and this offsets their difficulties to some extent. Cambridgeshire and the


Isle of Ely have no more than standard resources, and therefore average expenditure can only be met from a high rate.
There is a further special factor in this county, and it is in connection with the undergraduate population. This also applies to Oxford, although the County Borough of Oxford has higher than average rating resources, and is not affected in the same way that we are. During the passage of the Local Government Bill I referred to this, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied, but he did not altogether clear up the point, because the essence of it is that whereas the undergraduates are included in the total population and attract grant on that basis, the effect overall when the supplementary grants are taken into account is that the undergraduates are a minus quantity.
I have been taking advice about this White Paper No. 252. In parenthesis, may I say how difficult this has been in the extremely short time that we have had to consider it. I have been taking advice, in particular, about paragraph 40(b,ii). It looks double Dutch to me, but I am told that when reduced to simple terms it means "£73 per education unit minus £14·6 per head of population". If this advice is right, the effect is that this supplementary grant is equivalent to taking away from recipient authorities £l·35 more per head than is given to them by the basic population grant. The population grant is £13·25—this is paragraph 40(a)—and under paragraph 40(b,ii) it seems that £14·6 is to be taken away. This seems to be a ridiculous way of setting about things, but if that is right, then I think that it may explain why the inclusion of undergraduates in the population count of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely is a minus quantity to the county as a whole.
During the debate on the Local Government Bill the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
If we find…that this problem gets worse under the new grant as opposed to the old grant…we can adjust the formula in such a way as to take that into account"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 465.]
That was something to be thankful for, but we now know that this grant will not work properly and will have to be adjusted. How much more sensible it would have been to have had a new

system, which admittedly we needed, and which would take into account the special factors particularly relating to the smaller authorities which I have sought to describe.
I shall not go over all the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge, because to do so would be tedious. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) who, to save time, will not seek to take part in this debate. We both feel very strongly that the needs of this county, which has made representations so clearly and for so long the need for a new system, are not being met under this Order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a real attempt to clear up this point and explain how he thinks they will benefit, because at the moment it seems that they will not do so.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I shall take up the time of the House only for a few minutes in order to express my concern about the effect that this Order will have in an area like Bedfordshire—a concern which I am sure is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn). It is quite impossible to limit increases in expenditure to the levels envisaged in the Order in a county of this type. The only result will be an abnormally large increase in the county rate. It has been estimated in some quarters that this may be as much as 6d. in the £ of the county precept. This would be undesirable at any time, but it is particularly undesirable at the present time, in view of the prices and incomes policy, and I ask my right hon. Friend again seriously to consider my previous suggestion that this is a year when not only rents but rates should be frozen, and when a Government subsidy should be found to enable local authorities to maintain and expand their essential services.
Having said that, I do not suggest for a moment that the party opposite would in any way be more generous. I hate to tread a well-worn path, but history in 13 years showed that generosity was the least of their qualities. This period showed a considerable increase in rate levels.
My feeling is that the provisions for growth in this Order are inadequate for


a county like Bedfordshire. The Minister has suggested that provision must be made for teachers and schools. In Bedfordshire we are shortly to embark on another overspill project in Houghton Regis, which in this area is welcomed. We also have a considerable natural growth, which means that we shall have thousands more in our population and thousands more children to be educated. This cost has to be borne by the Bedfordshire authority, but while the population is expanding in this way the President of the Board of Trade is still rather reluctant to provide us, with the further industrial growth and diversification which could help not only this but other problems.
The inevitable result will be that a bigger and bigger burden will be borne by the householder-ratepayer. In fact, the Leighton Buzzard rate in the County of Bedfordshire was the highest in the country during 1966–67. I appeal to the Minister to consider the Order again and to see in what way further help can be given to special growth areas—areas which are expanding rapidly, like Bedfordshire. Can he make special provision for these areas in order to keep the rates down to a reasonable level?

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: When the Minister opened the debate he did his best to pour oil on troubled waters. Unfortunately for him the oil has done little to allay the turbulent waves of disillusionment and fears of the consequences of this thoroughly inadequate Rate Support Grant Order.
Fears of the consequences have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. One hon. Member opposite talked about agonising decisions, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) provided the House with figures illustrating the likely increases in his own county in next year's rates. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) expressed his concern, added to that of others. He said that he did not imagine that if my right hon. Friends were in power local authorities would be treated with any greater generosity.
Unfortunately, I have not the local government figures as a whole, but I have

as one example—and it is the main item of expenditure under local government—the figures for education, which show that in 1954–55, 3·2 per cent. of the national product was spent on education, whereas in 1964–65, 5·1 per cent. was spent on education, which proves that my right hon. Friends were far more generous than have been the present Government.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Member think that this proportion is an adequate expenditure on education?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that it is adequate, and I will come to that later. Under the title "Stringency in the Town Hall"—it might also have said "in the county hall"—The Times' leading article, on the subject of this Order, said:
The White Paper issued this week suggests that the Government are making a firm effort to retard the growth of local authority expenditure.
"Suggests", yes. But how on earth is this expected to be achieved, at least in the short term, and what effect will these suggestions have in the meantime on the ratepayer?
It is one thing to say, as the White Paper does, that the rate increase for local authority expenditure is too high to be acceptable under current economic conditions, but it is quite another to achieve a cut in the increase when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, local authority estimates for next year are already in an advanced state.
The Minister said that local authorities should distinguish what is essential and what is desirable. I do not know whether he has ever served on a local authority, but I know, from having fought in a local authority finance committee on behalf of education, that the chairmen of county finance committees—and of county borough finance committees, no doubt—continually press on their committees the need to recognise this point. All the Minister is doing is reiterating the point. He should realise much more than he apparently does to what an extent local authority committee chairmen are forced to cut down on what even they are inclined to think is essential.
Second, it is difficult to achieve a cut in the increase when a great proportion of existing local authority expenditure is a direct result of central Government action.


Section B of the White Paper deals with the development of services. It needs little imagination to realise that a great deal of money must be involved, whatever the Government may say about limiting, the advance in total expenditure.
According to the White Paper, local authority estimates of increases were 9·1 per cent. for 1967–68 and 6·3 per cent. for 1968–69. The Government have scaled this down to increases of 4·8 and 6·6 per cent., respectively. These figures have to cover normal growth, for instance in the school population and development of services and must take account of increases in the cost of living, which are bound to affect local authorities, like everybody else.
It is highly relevant to know that the cost of living has risen by about 9 per cent., in the last two years. If this rate continues, the Government's grant figures are likely to cause a deterioration rather than a development in local authority services, unless rates are to rise sharply to counteract the ill effects of inadequate grants.
Local authorities are being put in an impossible position. They will have to cut services or increase rates or both. Whichever they choose, they will incur the wrath of the people in their areas. It is they who will have to "carry the can" for Government actions. No wonder local authority service is not the most popular of occupations. This is yet another example of the Government's ability to pass the buck. It is like Selective Employment Tax, which has caused retailers and others to raise their prices while the Government, far from taking the blame, castigate all price increases
It is important that local authority forecasts for two years ahead should be based on a continuing development and expansion of local authority services. The Government are slowing this down. As the Chairman of the County Councils Association's Local Government Finance Committee said:
…if this slowing down of local authority services is necessary for national financial reasons, then clearly county councils will wish to co-operate, but the Government's policy must be made clear to the public and ratepayers in particular at all levels.

Education is in a particularly dangerous position at a time of financial stringency because it represents the greatest proportion of local authority expenditure. When councils are looking for savings—and I speak from experience on this matter—the natural reaction is to lop something off the largest spender. However, the great bulk of educational expenditure is irreducible. Local education authorities are obliged to pay teachers' salaries, loan charges and many other expenses. How on earth are they to make cuts?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) quoted Sir William Alexander, who made some pertinent comments in last Sunday's Observer. What do the Government want? I am sometimes inclined to think that they expect local authorities to carry out Government policy without any added expenditure whatever. The Government seem to think, for example, that no money is necessary for the reorganisation of secondary education. They appear to take the view that if some of the examples of botched up schemes produced by Labour controlled councils do not cost much. Conservative controlled councils should introduce similar schemes costing similar amounts.
Educationists were extremely concerned even before the Rate Support Grant Order was announced. With the abandonment of the National Plan, there was a gnawing fear about educational development and the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done nothing to allay that fear. The Conservative Party always felt that the education section of the National Plan was unsatisfactory, since it showed a slowing down of the rate of increase in educational expenditure compared with the five years before the Plan was to come into operation. Now our dissatisfaction is exacerbated by both the Rate Support Grant and by the equivocal statements of the Secretary of State.
When asked on 3rd November whether the National Plan's estimates of educational expenditure remained a firm commitment, the Secretary of State replied:
It is too early to say whether or how the programme for education might be affected by


recent changes in the economic prospects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 138.]
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth asked whether the Government's latest proposals—those which we are considering—for local government finance were consistent with the rate of growth which had occurred under the previous Conservative Government, to which the National Plan had referred. The Secretary of State again evaded the question and did not give a clear answer. Perhaps he did not know what he really thought at this stage. Perhaps he may have been giving consideration to the possibility of an increase in the school meals charge, which would go some small way to overcoming the other difficulties that will face local education authorities—

Sir E. Boyle: The National Plan was absolutely specific on the point that in each year during the last ten years we have been spending, in real terms, 5 per cent. more on each child at a primary school and 10 per cent. more on each secondary school child. My question was whether that projection was to be continued for the future. That seemed to me to be a very simple and straightforward question.

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for emphasising that point, to which we shall want a reply, as will the whole country. I believe that, whatever the reply, it must be depressing, which means that the Government have another dilemma. They have two alternatives, both unattractive: they can abandon the National Plan forecasts of expenditure on education, or they can retain those forecasts in which case they are accepting the fact that there will be a huge increase in the rates. Which is it to be? That is the question that we want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer this evening.
Two years ago, when the present Leader of the House introduced the first general grant order under a Labour Government, he repeated the policies that had been outlined by Labour spokesmen and by the Labour manifesto, which were to the effect that a greater proportion of local authority expenditure would in future be provided by central government.

It seems now that this is another promise that has gone by the board. I am appalled at the prospects for local government maintenance and development of services, and for the ratepayer, with the extra burdens he must bear.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Some hon. Members opposite have been speaking as champions of the ratepayers, and I would agree with what they have had to say in that respect. But the only way to give effect to this championship of the ratepayers is by getting an increased amount of money from the national Exchequer. Yesterday, hon. Members were, and probably tomorrow they will be, wearing different hats and, under them, calling for cuts in taxation. They sometimes forget that the people whom they champion one day are also those that need championing on the other days, and that the taxpayers and ratepayers are often, but not always, the same people, or the same class of people. This is one of the—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: But would not my hon. Friend agree that, whatever its failings, the Income Tax system is fairer than the rating system in that the criterion for charge to Income Tax is that people pay according to their means, whereas under the rating system they pay according to the accommodation they occupy individually, whether they are old-age pensioners or people earning £60, £70 or £80 a week?

Mr. Ogden: There would be very few hon. Members who would disagree with that statement. The ins and outs of the rating system, which were simple when first introduced have long been overtaken, and it is one of the items that the Royal Commission on local government has in mind in its deliberations.
I do not think that it is accepted outside the House that on one day it can be argued that the rates must be kept down and on the next day the same group of people can argue that taxation must be kept down. Services must be paid for one way or the other.
This dilemma is highlighted to some degree in the system of block grants. Over the past few years there has been an interchange of points of view on this subject between the Tories when they


were in Government and between Labour Members when they were in opposition. When the block grant system was introduced, the then Labour Opposition strongly opposed it. They said that they did not like the block grant system and pointed to all the anomalies in it, anomalies which have been discussed to some degree tonight by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle).
Education facilities can greatly vary between one local authority and another. A local authority is given a block grant and it is left to the authority to decide whether education will do better than housing or vice versa. This is an interchange. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends now defend the block grant system and try to make it work better than it is working. They have a case for saying that, if there is to be a complete reorganisation of local government, including local authority powers—not only as to boundaries but as to finance as well—it might be advisable to keep the present block grant system, adapt it slightly, and try to make it work in the interim period before the Local Government Commission reports, which will be in about 18 months time. It would be fortunate if the Commission's recommendations, whatever they may be, were implemented within the next three or lour, possibly five, years. Therefore, whether we like the present local authority financial position or not, we shall be stuck with it for the life of this Parliament at least and for part of the next one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, methods of assessment are out of order on this Motion and I hope that he himself will adhere to the dictum he adduced.

Mr. Ogden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir E. Boyle: It is true that the general grant system attracted great controversy in 1958, as I well remember. During the debates on that Measure it was the firm statement of the then Government that there should always be a margin in the relevant expenditure recognised by the Government for development. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about adapting the present system. For the first time

since the Act was passed, we have really had a savage cut in the relevant expenditure of local authorities. This is the great difference. It is a very unpleasant adaptation.

Mr. Ogden: Cuts are always unpleasant, whether they are made by a Labour Government or by a Conservative Government. I agree that this is not a pleasant Measure to support, but I do not think that either my right hon. Friend or his colleagues have joy in saying, "In present circumstances we have had to ask local authorities to reduce their expenditure". No Minister of Housing would like having to do that.
Many of us came to the House after service with local authorities. I am speaking of elected service as distinct from service as an officer—for instance, as town clerk or surveyor. In regard to the amount of money needed by local authorities and to local authority efficiency, I wish I could believe that national government was as efficient as local government. I wish I could believe that Members of Parliament had as much influence in making policies and had as much ability to probe how those policies were being carried out as local councillors.
We are now to have two specialist committees. If we are concerned about the prestige and influence of the House, a specialist committee on housing and local government might be a very useful body to have, especially as there has been no prior consultation with Members of Parliament on these two Orders. We have had no part in arranging any of the details included in the Orders. Organisations outside the House—for instance, the A.M.C.—were no doubt consulted before these decisions were taken. One way of ensuring the continuing prestige and authority of Parliament would be the recognition that the House should be one of the bodies consulted before decisions are made and presented to us in this form. If we are to play such a part, it must be before we are presented with an Order as we are tonight.
We can either accept the Orders before us, which would be desirable—I shall support them if there is a Division—or we can reject them because we do not believe that they contain all that they


should. But that is a very limited rôle for us to play. We cannot amend the Orders in any way. We can suggest, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested, that they should be changed in one way or another, but our effect on the Orders tonight is almost nil. That is not a good position for Parliament to be in.
The very deep concern of my own local authority is shared by many hon. Members, regardless of which side of the House they sit. The effect on balances of this necessary action by the Government in asking local authorities to reduce their expenditure has not been mentioned so far. The balances have never been too high, in my opinion. Certainly, we in Liverpool shall try to hold the services as they are at the moment, but we are one of the cities which need a vast expansion of services.
It is all very well to say that town centre development should be held back. That might be all right for Chelmsford and some other places in the South, but town centre development is very desirable for cities like Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. Very deep concern is felt about the effect Government decisions are having, and have had, on local authority finances in the North-West. In Liverpool and other areas local authorities will do all they can to comply with the Minister's request, but they have very grave doubts whether they will be able to do so. That is not the happiest situation to be in.
Perhaps the Minister could re-examine the type of criteria included in the General Grant Increase Order. At present, it is limited to increases in costs, remuneration and prices. There may be, and I think that there is, a case for widening the Minister's discretion to bring in that type of increase Order.
Although I shall support the Orders tonight, I hope that in the not too distant future a real adaptation of local finance can be introduced and carried through the House to help our constituents.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I was very interested in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on consultations between the Government and hon. Mem

bers. I do not know whether he served with those of us on the Standing Committee, but we then tried very hard to persuade Ministers to give us the information which would flow from their proposals. At that time they said that it was premature, and they could not tell us just what the effects of their proposals would be.
I hope to show that, rather than make an assessment of need, the Government have set a figure of the increased expenditure in local Government and have conditioned the whole of their thinking to that expansion of expenditure. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is very unlikely to see the fulfilment of his wish. If he is familiar with the criticism of most of the local authority associations which have been engaged in the discussions with the Ministry he will know that it flows from the very limited time there has been for those discussions. The local authority associations have been very critical about that.
It is clear that in their approach to local government expenditure under the Orders the Government are showing their determination to limit expenditure to a particular growth rate. It has been suggested that the figure may be 6 per cent. That seems to be borne out by a comparison made on an arithmetical progression at 6 per cent. for the four years from 1965 to 1968–69—the year which we are considering tonight—and the Government's forecast.
In other words, the Government have already decided the growth rate of their share of the contributions to local government expenditure, and the Order is determined in that way. In his opening remarks, the Minister admitted that the Government were lowering their sights a little. I think that that is a fair statement, and that it reflects some of the comments that have been made from both sides of the House that the Government will clearly be responsible for a lowering and limitation of expansion of local government services. I am sure that they are facing up to this and I can well understand their reluctance to designate the particular services which are to be affected.
I hold the view that there must be a limit to the growth of expenditure in the


public sector, but hitherto the grant support system, despite control exercised by loan consent, has led to open-ended arrangements in local government expenditure. Local authorities have understandably extended their services, rivalling one another in many aspects and, to some ex tent, in the grand nature of some of the schemes that we see throughout the country. But they are urged and encouraged by Government Departments in this and as recently as February, 1966, in the White Paper on Local Government Finance, England and Wales, paragraph 9 said:
The Government are convinced that the need is not to lower present standards of service, but to raise them.
During the intervening six months, the Government have found it impossible to implement this hope. Indeed, they have now to be influenced by the requirements laid down in paragraph 15 of the White Paper:
Local authorities could be asked to submit estimates of expenditure for the following two years and this would be examined in the light of the need to develop services and of the Government's declared aim of containing the growth of public expenditure.
The Government have had to face the financial realities and have found it impossible to implement the hopes of the White Paper expressed in paragraph 9. They have had to take a decision on the total of grant to be made available for the two years with which the Order is concerned. Local authorities, having been asked to prepare their budgets for the next two years, estimated, for 1967–68 their expenditure at £2,718 million and the forecast determined by the Minister is £2,557 million; for the subsequent year the respective figures were £2,902 million and £2,726 million. These represent cuts against the estimates of grant total to local authority expenditure of £161 million and £176 million.
This exercise is one of a number of its type that we have seen called for by the Government during the past two years. It is a sham procedure. It is shameful to some extent and, in the context of this inquiry, the evidence is that it has been completely wasteful. It has the appearance of sweet reasonableness and of an apparent anxiety to take into account views other than those the Government hold. But, all along, I suspect that Ministers have had their briefs,

have known what they intended to do, and in this case what increased expenditure they were prepared to support. The local authority associations have had to submit an impossibly tight programme of consultations—if, indeed, they can be described as such, for I am told that the discussions on the forecasts were twice postponed at the request of the Ministry.
As late as between 22nd and 24th November the Department was still producing detailed papers for consideration. Advisers to the local authority representatives were left with just a weekend to prepare a brief for the elected representatives to discuss the matter further with the authorities on 29th November, just three weeks ago.
This can be no good way to deal with matters of this importance and magnitude under a completely new and untried grant system. The County Councils Association termed these negotiations "grossly inadequate". The A.M.C. is quoted as having said:
The many counter arguments put forward by the representatives of the Association at various stages and the serious handicaps under which the discussions took place are ignored".
Some treasurers of authorities received their copy of the Order only yesterday afternoon. It is no wonder that throughout local government there is great cynicism about the Government's proposals and their handling of the so-called negotiations.
There is also serious concern that they cannot be implemented without serious damage to many local government services. I am sure that reduced expenditure will affect the planning departments, the domiciliary services, child welfare and important new work in connection with the resettlement of families with particular difficulties.
I see that two hon. Members representing Bedfordshire constituencies are present. The Treasurer of the Bedfordshire County Council is quoted as having said:
Local authorities have been constantly under pressure from Whitehall to improve services and enlarge their scope. This has resulted in the incurring of long term liabilities on the understanding that the cost would be shared between national and local funds. In these circumstances it is a breach of faith to withhold grants without proper notice".
I also have a quotation from Alderman Porter, who is the Chairman of the


Finance Committee of the Bedfordshire County Council, and who says:
Certainly, so far as Bedfordshire is concerned it will be quite impossible to limit increases in expenditure in 1967/68 to the levels as envisaged in the Order. In consequence there are clear indications that there will be an abnormally large increase in the County Rate".
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) spoke of a 6d. increase, but I think that it is unlikely to be limited to that figure.
Hitherto, there have been appeals to local government to curtail expenditure which, under the terms of this Order, will now formally be required to be curtailed. Will the Government now instruct the various Departments which deal with local government services not to continue to press for the extension and expansion of the services with which they are concerned? In the Minister's own words, in the context of many local government services this means a lowering of standards. I am sure that a recognition of this is the necessary and honourable course which the Government have to take in the circumstances envisaged in the Order.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Apart from the Minister, only the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has said that he would support the Order, although even he criticised it. From both sides of the House there have been criticisms about the method of drawing up the Order with the local authorities associations and about its presentation and about its effect on ratepayers and local authorities generally in the next two years. I cannot think of any other Order, even in the economic circumstances mentioned in the Minister's statement, which in effect, has been a cut. I cannot think of any Order which has been brought to the House in such inauspicious circumstances, and I will predict that the Minister will not be able to adhere to the provisions of that Order during the forthcoming two years. That is my prediction. He may like to confirm that he agrees with me. He does not do so, but he will.
In the meantime, what this Order does can be summed up for the public in the phrase "Pay more for less". That is what it adds up to. There are some little

things in it about which we can be quite pleased. The provision for residential accommodation for the aged and infirm and the welfare services for the handicapped is to be increased. That is highly welcome. But we also see in one of these columns that school milk and meals are taking about 4 per cent. of all local authority expenditure listed as relevant for the purposes of this Order. That is increasing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that is was all very well for hon. Members to say they do not like all these increases in rates which will follow, but what items should be cut? That is the implication of what he said. Cuts would have to be made unless there were compensating increases in taxation.
The work done for the nation by local authorities contains many very important elements. If these are to be sacrified because of the Government's economic failure and the policy which has stemmed from that, it is right and necessary that there should he changes in the statutory obligations laid upon local authorities.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that there is a statutory obligation upon local authorities to supply school milk and meals to those who wish to have them. He will no doubt confirm that that is the case. It is ludicrous when 4 per cent. of all local authority expenditure is going on school milk and meals, and, at the same time, services such as education proper, care of the aged and infirm and the disabled of various sorts, which by common consent should be expanded, are halted or even cut.
We cannot let this Order go through without making a firm statement upon that. I appreciate that it might not be possible or particularly fair to cut out expenditure on school meals and milk all at one fell swoop, but even if it were halved it would make a very great difference. It might be said that this is very callous, because children of large families, where the breadwinner is not earning very much, would be particularly badly hit. That is not what I want to see. Welfare workers with many years of experience are agreed that there are many ways in which that difficulty can be overcome.
In raising this matter, I am not suggesting that we should withdraw help from children in need. What I am suggesting is that we should require parents to pay


for the feeding of their children if that is what is required to enable the education services and the welfare services for the elderly to continue to develop along the lines which the community wishes.
I have referred to the leading article in The Times on this Order, and I brought the cutting to the House. These words caught my eye:
…unsuppressed indignation defying the frustration of circumstances".
I thought that that was exactly how we all feel about this Order, and then I discovered that I had turned to the wrong side, to the obituary notice on Mr. Walt Disney. But those words very well describe how we feel and how the local authorities feel in the circumstances.
I thought it unfortunate that in the Minister's Report refuse disposal and parks were bracketed together, with a line to themselves. It may be right that the same policy should be adopted for parks as for refuse disposal, but the implication seems to be that the development of open spaces for the use of the public is not regarded in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry as a particularly pleasant activity for the bringing of enjoyment and amenity to a locality. It is a pity that this should be so. It is a pity also that provisions for the implementation of the Clean Air Act, in which progress is being made, should be cut, the more so as it is now evident that dirty air is a large contributory factor, though not the only one and probably not the main one, to lung cancer and bronchitis, which the Minister of Health is so keen to reduce.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) asked about the proposal to reduce the element borne by domestic ratepayers by 5d. in the £ next year and 10d. thereafter. Is this regarded as an adequate fulfilment of the pledges which the Government made to ratepayers at two elections? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a direct reply. In these circumstances does he consider that a reduction of 5d. next year and 10d. the year after in the rate poundage borne by domestic ratepayers is an adequate fulfilment of the pledges made by his party?
There is a very big cut in what is classified as relevant expenditure, which, perhaps, one might well call approved expenditure, in the administration of local

authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the local authorities had had put on them by the Government very many burdens which, it was said when the various provisions were going through the House, would be costly to administer. How does the Parliamentary Secretary regard the alternatives now facing local authorities, and what course does he recommend them to adopt? Does he recommend them to allow the standard of their administration to falter and decline, or does he recommend them to push up the local rate to a very high level to maintain the necessary administrative stature to meet the burdens which have been put upon local authorities by his right hon. Friends?
It is not surprising that there has been so much criticism of the Order. It is not difficult to conclude that it will not stand the test of time. Ministers would do better to be honest rather than to try to make this sleight of hand—that is what it amounts to. Pledges have been made and broken. This Order is another pledge. It purport to show the public that the Government are managing to reduce local authority expenditure. That is even what The Times leader, when I read the right side of it, thought it was all about.
I predict with certainty that the passage of these two years will prove that that is not so and show that we are going through an elaborate charade in criticising Government decisions to which the Government have no chance of adhering. The Government have abused the House in the manner in which they have brought forward the Order. They have abused the ratepayers in not fulfilling their pledges. They have abused the local authorities by putting them in an impossible position. The amount of abuse which they have meted out to others will be meted out to them before very long.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: As with other local authorities, Hertfordshire is in a serious dilemma because of the Order, which makes a cut of 6 per cent. in the Government grant needed by local authorities—a total of £161 million. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that this side of the House when, in power, had also made cuts, as if they were comparable. The biggest cut before this was in 1962–63, of


£25 million, compared with local authority estimates. A cut of £25 million may perhaps be dealt with, but how local authorities at this late stage can absorb a cut of £161 million is completely beyond me.
Local authority expenditure is steadily expanding in real terms—we do not have to consider the effects in inflation—as we can see from past figures. Last year, there was an increase over the previous year of 6 per cent. This year the probable increase in expenditure is 8½ per cent. The estimate for next year is of a requirement of 9·1 per cent. and 3·2 per cent. is allowed for that increase. This figure, of course, does not appear in the White Paper, perhaps because it is too embarrassing to the Government, although the Minister was frank enough to speak of a 6 per cent. cut—from 9·1 per cent. to 3·2 per cent.
This will be appallingly difficult. The Government leave local authorities with a decision whether to cut services or to have substantial increases in rates. Much of the expansion represents capital repayments and interest charges on capital works already in progress, and such items as furnishing and staffing of new schools, health and welfare premises. It really is impossible to make drastic cuts in these types of expenditure unless we are to leave as empty shells buildings when we have completed them. That, I trust, is not the intention of the Government.
Of course, many people would applaud the decision to streamline rate-borne expenditure, but this, after all, is already the subject of very careful pruning at the estimates stage. The White Paper, however, from paragraph 12 onwards talks about expansion of services. It is really laughable unless the Government intend a massive increase in rates. Paragraph 14 talks about a steady expansion of teachers. What do the Government mean by this? Do they intend an expansion in the education service, which, after all, represents more than 50 per cent.—in Hertfordshire, 75 per cent.—of our expenditure? Or do they intend that to be cut?
Hertfordshire suffers, as do other areas with rapidly expanding population, because of the factor which is not recognised, and which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) mentioned.

Hertfordshire has been in this position for a long time; we have been an expanding area for years, for the whole time since the general grant was first brought in, and, in consequence, now we find that we are losing £1½ million as compared with the average of the general grant for the whole country.
The original theory was the projects pay for themselves by the increase in rateable values, but this does not work out in practice. Hertfordshire's have steadly increased over the years. In expanding areas such as new towns there is heavy expenditure on roads which are not principal roads, and so are not, under the new scheme, grant-aided. At present, it is the transitional provisions which cushion the effects, but unless something is done by the Ministry of Transport in relation to this the situation will become very severe in areas with a rapidly expanding population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) spoke of school meals. I agree very much with what he said. Of course, the Government retain the power to vary the charges for school meals, but as now the whole charge falls on local authorities would it not be much better to let the local authorities themselves decide on the charges, subject, perhaps, to the minimum charge laid down by Parliament? Then there would be the possibility, where there is a reasonably wealthy area, that it should be enabled to raise from parents more in charges for school meals. There is no need to harm anyone, as my hon. Friend said, but this would give that right to local authorities, if they felt it reasonable to increase those charges.
Hertfordshire is profoundly disappointed at the grant it will receive. The ratepayers are faced with a substantial rate increase, or with cuts in services, and, in particular, in education. This is a very far cry from the Labour Party's election pledge to bring urgent relief to ratepayers by transferring a greater proportion of costs to the central Government. When, inevitably, rates rise next year, let it be remembered that the fault lies with the Government and not with the local authorities.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: Having sat here the whole afternoon, I have a


sense of relief that I am at last standing on my feet, although that is conditioned to some extent by the knowledge that so many of the things which I wanted to say have been said far more adequately by other hon. Members already—not that that well stop me saying them again. I cannot speak with authority on rating matters, as can my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who is to wind up from this side of the House. I can only speak as a ratepayer and as the representative of ratepayers in Buckinghamshire.
I want to claim the melancholy privilege of saying that Buckinghamshire is one of the most heavily rated counties in the country, despite what has been said by hon. Members on both sides making claims for their own areas. It is an acknowledged fact that the county of Buckingham has been expanding at something like three and a half times the average rate for England and Wales and has suffered rate increases equivalent to three times the average rate increases for the rest of the country over recent years. So that it has experience of heavy and swingeing increases over quite a long period of time.
It was with that in mind that I looked at the explanatory memorandum to see what relief was to be given to the hard-pressed county of Buckingham. I looked in vain. Nevertheless, having heard the debate and having realised that the Order has not a friend in the world, except a few people on the Government Front Bench, one is almost disposed out of sheer charity to come to its rescue. However, that is carrying charity too far. Nevertheless, I can well understand the anxiety of the Government at the mounting expenditure of local authorities at a pace which is gathering momentum year after year. It is a very serious problem. It is a pity that they did not appreciate the full extent of the problem when they were making their election promises, particularly during the last election when they had no excuse for not knowing the financial state to which they had reduced the country in their previous 12 or 18 months' operations.
Tempted as I am to support the Government in their praiseworthy effort to reduce local authority expenditure, I cannot do so on this occasion. When I looked through the Order, as far as I was able to understand it, it seemed to me

that, far from achieving an actual reduction in local authority expenditure, all that was to happen was that they would transfer the burden of expenditure from the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer to the ratepayer. As that was likely to hit Buckinghamshire particularly badly, naturally I reacted against it violently.
In the debate on 20th October on proposed Amendments to the Local Government Bill, I tried to persuade the Minister to give to Buckinghamshire the benefit of the relief given to the Metropolitan area, because it is on the fringe of the Metropolitan area. I failed in that. In a sense, this Order adds insult to injury, because there was a very good case for the Amendment which I moved on that occasion and, had it been accepted, perhaps the impact of the Order on Buckinghamshire would have been less severe.
Just as other hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried, I have tried to calculate the actual cuts in local government expenditure which have been dictated by the Government. At the beginning, I was misled by the figures shown in paragraphs 8 and 10 into believing that the respective figures were £105 million and £104 million. It was only when the Association of Municipal Corporations came to my aid in the form of a letter which I received only this morning that I realised that those were not the figures and that the actual reduction in expenditure was more than 50 per cent. greater than one would have thought at first sight by the sheer arithmetical deduction of one set of figures from the other in paragraphs 8 and 10.
I do not think that it should be left to outside bodies to explain Government White Papers and to make the facts crystal clear to hon. Members. I think that in making comparisons in White Papers the Government should compare like with like. If they use November, 1966 to arrive at one set of figures, they should use the same basis to arrive at the other. I find it most disquieting that when an Order and a White Paper are presented to us so suddenly, without adequate time to examine them, and to get advice on them, it is only by the alertness of the association to which I have referred that I am able to get the information which I should have had in the first place.
It seems that the Government have made their calculation—and this has been referred to by both sides of the House—on the basis that expenditure for 1966–67 will be below the estimate of £2,440 million. I do not know on what evidence they base their expectations. I cannot see that there is any evidence at all to assume that expenditure will be less than the estimate already given to us. We all know that local authorities are fully committed to their expenditure for the 1966–67 period, and therefore the chances are that the estimates will certainly be reached, if not exceeded.
Following on that, they have apparently calculated on the basis of a 6 per cent. growth rate per year in the following years, and this is the limit to which they are going to allow growth to take place in the services provided by local authorities. As has been stressed emphatically by both sides of the House, the growth in the services provided by local authorities does not come about only because of the pressure of increases in population, but because of pressure from the Government themselves to implement Government policies. It is the Government's deliberate attempt to persuade local authorities to increase the scope of their services which has caused local authorities to accept greater liability and to go in for schemes of much greater expenditure. I am not at the moment saying that this is necessarily the wrong thing to do, but it is rather disgraceful when, on the one hand, they encourage local authorities to expand their services, and suddenly hit them with a sledge hammer in this way and say that they must cut back their services, even though at this stage it is impossible so to do.

Sir D. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in respect of educational services it is right to follow whatever lead is given by whatever Government in improving them.

Mr. Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Indeed, it would be tragic if many of the services which have been expanded were cut back, but they will not be. Local authorities will have to go on with their existing commitments. If they are wise they will go on with some of the commitments which they have

expanded, such as the educational one to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred, and this will mean that rates will rise.
When my town clerk spoke to me this morning to urge me to intervene in this debate, he was too stunned by the impact of this White Paper and the information which he had received from his association to do more than say to me in a broken voice, "Do your best for us", because he knows only too well what will be the effect of this.
The local authorities and all the councillors who are elected to these bodies will bear the unpopularity which rightly belongs to the Government. They will be told, "What the devil do you mean by putting up the rates like this? We have had our incomes frozen, prices are frozen, and yet you, the local authority for Blankshire, are putting on this swingeing increase in rates which will be a tremendous burden to us, and in many cases be difficult for individuals to meet. Why are you doing it?" It is the local authorities who will bear the unpopularity for this Order.
The Government must have the courage to say quite clearly that any increase in rates, and any curtailment in services which take place, if any curtailment can at this late stage take place, are the result of Government action, and Government action only. If there is to be any criticism of the actions which follow this Order, it must be directed fairly and squarely at the Government and the benches opposite.
This is not to say that what they are doing may not be right in the long term. I am not arguing that at the moment. But they must accept full responsibility. They must not try to hide behind local authorities and palm off on them the unpopularity that they should take upon themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "They Probably they will. In Buckinghamshire, which is still expanding rapidly and taking a great overflow from the cities—and which in my constituency is growing at an amazing rate—whether Government policy is changed or not we shall suffer an increasing rate burden until such time as I hope that the wealth which comes into the area enables us to catch up.

Sir D. Renton: It will be a long time.

Mr. Hall: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, it will be a long time. I plead with the Minister to consider the special position of some of our county areas which have problems akin to those of Buckinghamshire—rapidly growing areas near to large conurbations and therefore affected by the high prices ruling in those conurbations. I hope that he will look at these problems and see whether it is not possible to give these areas much more help than they have been given so far. I have tried unsuccessfully to draw the Minister's attention to this problem on a previous occasion, and I am trying again tonight.
I shall not vote against the Order. I appreciate that it must be passed. However, I do not think that it can be effective. It will probably have to be revised after the first year's experience. I hope that in the course of revision the Minister will take into account the specialised problems of highly rated counties—highly rated through no inefficiency of local authorities but because of the special circumstances with which they have to contend.

9.42p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: Having taken part in many debates on grant Orders I can say that this is the most friendless grant Order that has ever been debated in my time. I was almost sorry at one point for the Minister. felt that he was taking the rap which should have been taken by the Chancellor and, indeed, the Prime Minister, because the decisions that have brought about this Order have definitely been Cabinet decisions to cut back the rate of growth expenditure by local authorities.
I was not surprised when the Minister gave a rather cursory explanation of the Order. I am sure he did not wish to enlarge on the very unpleasant repercussions which will flow from it. I am exceedingly sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary; he has to reply to the debate. He has one friend in the Chamber, who said that he would not vote against the Order; that shows the degree of friendlessness that the Order has. There is no doubt why the Order has been produced in this form. It is because it is being brought in against zero growth in the economy. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was speaking he asked how we had been able

to achieve our rate of progress. The answer was that during our term of office there was always growth in the economy, and the taxation base was always buoyant that, unfortunately, is not the case today.
The Government, as usual, are facing both ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going overseas and telling foreign bankers that austerity measures are working in this country and that he is cutting back on public expenditure. On the other hand, departmental Ministers—and I am glad to see a representative of the Home Office here—are constant by issuing circulars to local authorities urging more growth in practically every conceivable service.
Regrettably, production is now static. Local authority expediture is rising, and if there is no cut back in the scope and quality of local government services the people who will suffer will be the ratepayers.
It is against that background I want to examine the Order.
In passing, I must make one comment on the General Grant (Increase) Order, which today has received little comment. That is because it was brought in under the 1958 Act, a Conservative Measure, Which has proved extremely satisfactory. I am very glad that that Order has received no criticism. This is indeed a commendation of the 1958 Act of the Conservative Government.
In picking up one or two of the important points which have been made during the debate, I wish to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members opposite, for their contributions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed to the extraordinary rise in rates which is expected in his county. I am sorry to say that I think that his prognostications will be proved to be correct.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) drew attention to the very tight timetable under which the preparations for this Measure have been calculated. In Standing Committee, I spent an hour and a quarter— it was the longest speech I have made in my parliamentary career—drawing attention to the


fact that it would be impossible to adhere to the timetable. Even the Statutory Instruments Committee, at this late stage, has criticised the haste with which this Measure has been brought before the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), in a particularly interesting speech, drew attention to the concern which is felt among education authorities at the effects of the Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) drew attention to the fact that local authorities are in many instances administering services which are placed upon them statutorily by the central Government and that they therefore have no option but to carry out those services to certain standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), in a particularly powerful speech, made a number of the points which I shall make as I develop my speech.
It was significant that from the benches opposite the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Robert Davies) showed tremendous prescience. He had got his calculation entirely right. The hon. Member said that local authorities would be receiving more like 50 per cent. of relevant expenditure in 1967–68 and 1968–69 rather than the figures claimed by the Government. This is a severe criticism and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will at least reply to his hon. Friend.
What we on this side object to is that this decrease in assistance to local authorities is being dressed up as an increase. We agree with the local authority associations that the base year should have been 1966–67. The estimates for that year can be proved to be fairly accurate. The year is three-quarters past and the right starting point for the new rate support grants undoubtedly should have been the current year's expenditure of local authorities rather than escalating by a doubtful multiplication the totals for 1965–66. This looks like a cynical exercise in putting the blame for cuts upon the local authorities. Frankly, however, I would have expected this from the present Government, because local authorities are employers, in the same way as there are employers in industry,

and the Government are trying to put the blame for all rises in costs upon employers. This includes local authorities as employers.
I was interested in the Press reaction to this grant Order. The Government's Press hand-out department must have been working at rather less than its usual high standard, or perhaps it was meant to bamboozle the newspapers. Certainly, the White Paper is extremely confusing. It struck me that prescient papers like The Guardian would not have got things wrong if the Press hand-out had been more explicit.
The Guardian had a headline "Rate cut 5d." Of course, there is a rate cut of 5d. in the domestic sector, but that very much masks the true effect of the Order upon ratepayers. The Daily Mail, which is always particular in getting its facts right, described the cuts as £209 million in the two years when the correct figure should have been £335 million.
On the second day after publication of the Order, however, The Times came out with a leader, and by that time the penny had dropped. The Times said on 16th December:
The real job of squaring popularly approved social programmes with financial stringency now passes to Town and County Halls.
Here we have the truth. The real task of carrying out these financial cuts is thrown to the town and county halls, and this is another case of the present Government "passing the buck", as usual.
I turn now to the Order and the White Paper, because this debate is being held against a background of gargantuan public expenditure in the local authority sphere. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Rural District Councils' Association, a happy occasion, the Minister of Housing and Local Government—thinking, I suppose, that he could get over a rather important figure in a comparatively easy manner; I am not criticising him for quoting the figure on that occasion—said that local authority expenditure was now exceeding £4,000 million a year.
That is a formidable figure, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman some questions about his forecasts for future exuenditure


on local government and my Parliamentary Question was transferred to the Treasury. Thus, we see who is really responsible for containing local government expenditure. It is the Treasury—and, significantly, the estimates of the Treasury were considerably below the estimates of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to the total of local authority expenditure.
During the period of this grant Order the total of local authority expenditure will push past five American billions of pounds per annum, a formidable figure. It is made up as to two-thirds of current expenditure, and 80 per cent. of that current expenditure is within this Rate Support Grant Order. This amount of £5,000 million makes defence expenditure look like peanuts. I remember the time when local authority expenditure passed defence expenditure, but it is now running at double the rate of defence expenditure in this country.
It was against these enormous figures that the Government set out in their White Paper certain aspects of policy. They state in paragraph 9 that
… the rate of growth of the economy will fall short of that postulated in the National Plan. …
Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the local authorities that the figures in the National Plan have failed to materialise. It is not the fault of the ratepayers, but of the central Government. The whole responsibility for this is, therefore, fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the central Government, who go on to say, in paragraph 9:
… the growth of public expenditure must be restrained …".
We agree, but we ask that the Government should be absolutely explicit about where they wish these cuts to come; otherwise, the whole odium will fall on local authorities. Local authorities have been budgeting with this restraint in mind.
Cmnd. 3150 gives a clue about what is to be done during the period of severe restraint, for it states in paragraph 21:
Local authorities have been urged to ensure proper economies in expenditure.
So local authorities have already been enjoined to be careful about future expenditure. It is against that background that their estimates for the two succeed-

ing years were made. Against their budgeting on this careful basis, they have had, in the first year, £160 million knocked off their estimates, and rather more in the second year.
Over the years local authorities have been extraordinarily accurate in forming their estimates of future expenditure and have been within 1 per cent. in their estimating taking the last few years of the actual out-turn of expenditure in the local authority sphere. I am afraid that unless local authority services are to be slashed substantially, ratepayers will be in for an extremely difficult time.
The White Paper which the Minister has issued with this grant Order is very explicit on the development of services. Expansion is expected in practically every service—in education, in local health, fire, child care, and administration of justice. There is a slight increase in expenditure on refuse disposal and parks. Highway expenditure drops in what I call the neutral zone largely because no one knows whether the principal roads have yet been designated. I understand that they have not. So no one knows the effect of the new proposals for highway expenditure.
Police expenditure is estimated to expand substantially. If it is in excess of the growth rate postulated in the calculations, the effect will be to diminish the rate support grant that will be available to all ratepayers. One item in which there is a very severe cut is in general administration and miscellaneous expenses, with which I will deal later. I do not believe that scale of economy can be effected there.
At the end of the White Paper we have the general provisions for distribution by counties and county boroughs. Time and time again I have asked the Minister to tell us who will be the gainers and the losers, and to let us have the figures. We have been blindfold throughout all our discussions on the Local Government Bill, and again on this grant Order. Had the Minister been more explicit, we could have had a much better informed debate. As The Times says, these particular formulae "are of intimidating complexity". I should have thought that the Minister would have been able to help the House very much more than he has to thread its way through the complexities.
The right hon. Gentleman forecast that the 5d. domestic relief that he is offering to domestic ratepayers would meet almost half the increase in rates that was generally expected. I expect the general rise in rates to be something in excess of 10d.—I have estimated it at Is. I further estimate that local authorities will not be able to attain anything like the cuts they are expected to make. If they achieve half the cuts, they will be doing extremely well, in which case there will be a general rise in rates of 6d.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) expected a general rate rise of something over 10 per cent. I put the figure at 15 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) put the figure for his area at 20 per cent. He is probably in one of those areas that I described as losers. So what we are talking about is an average increase of rates of 15 per cent., less a small domestic rebate, and of something well in excess of that in some cases. The sheer lateness of the Government's announcement makes it extraordinarily difficult for local authorities already estimating for 1967–68 to cut back expenditure for next year.
A lot has been said about domestic relief, but nothing about the effect of these enormous increases in rates on commerce and industry. One hon. Member mentioned their effect on the cost of living and on the price level. Without doubt, shopkeepers who at present are struggling to keep prices steady will have the full impact of the increases of rates which will flow from this rate support grant Order. If retail prices go up, the blame will quite definitely lie with the Government.
It may not have escaped the notice of right hon. and hon. Members that industrial profits at the present time are falling. The Government wish to encourage exports. Against this particular background, heavy industry will receive an enormous increase in rates.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with

at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Temple: In industry at present there are firms which are struggling to keep alive. There are firms which are making no profits at all. I know of one firm in my constituency which, last year, made a net loss of £130,000 and its rate burden is £40,000 a year. The Government cannot say that in all sectors of industry the increased rate burden can be set off against profits. The impact will be the most severe on businesses which are struggling for survival and on small businesses in the early stages of growth. They will be hit precisely twice as hard as affluent businesses.
I said that I would return to the figure for administration and miscellaneous services, because it is here where the Government expect a very severe cut indeed. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that, if the cut is not achieved in this sector or in any other sector, it may well have to be taken in the educational sector. I do not believe that local authorities will be able to cut their expenditure on administrative and miscellaneous services 20 per cent. below their estimates. This is the figure which is postulated within these calculations.
The Government are adding to the administration problems of local government right across the board. Many of the administration problems, such as the administration of the Rent Acts, rate rebate schemes, and the new mixed hereditaments, are statutory obligations laid upon local government. I would not think that there can be much cutting here in administration.
I am supported in this, because this sector is a sector of minutiae. To put it in the vernacular, every mickle makes a muckle. I refer here to the effect on administration of the Selective Employment Tax. Mr. H. R. Page, the City Treasurer of Manchester, draws attention in a very interesting article in Local Government Finance to the extra administrative cost due to the impact of the Selective Employment Tax on local authorities. He does not say that it is a very big impost, but it is one of the additional administrative costs.
Referring to the way in which the tax is collected, because local authorities hand over most of their National Insurance contributions on a bulk basis, Mr. Page says in this article:
The absurdity begins—to use a current phrase—to escalate.
He goes on to say this:
If they"—
that is, the Departments—
believe that increased productivity means cutting out all unnecessary activities, then S.E.T. is the antithesis of productivity.
Mr. Page ends on a rather mournful note:
goodness me, what an unnecessary waste when we have so many important things to do.
Mr. Page is someone I have admired at a distance for many years. I have never had the honour of meeting him. He has no politics whatsoever, but I believe his criticism to be very much "on the ball" and extremely pungent.
It is for these sorts of reasons that I do not believe that this cut of 20 per cent. can possibly be effected in the administrative and miscellaneous sector. I could go over a number of the other miscellaneous services which are statutory and which are bound to be carried out by local government—the operation of such things as weights and measures services, the public health inspectorate, and the town and country planning legislation. All those functions are laid upon local government; local authorities are bound to carry them out. I forecast with a degree of confidence that it will be quite impossible for local authorities in this particular sphere, which is the second largest sphere of relevant expenditure, to achieve anything like a 20 per cent. cut-back.
I agree that there are major difficulties in cutting back local government expenditure, particularly without direct orders from the Government. We have heard no further explicit orders tonight. The White Paper of February, 1966, Cmnd. 2923, said at paragraph 9:
… the need is not to lower present standards of service, but to raise them;
I wonder if that dictum of February, 1966 stands or has gone overboard like a number of the Government's other pronouncements.
An Economist article of 29th October was interesting. It said that local govern-

ment, given freedom, could often provide adequate services more cheaply. "Given freedom" means freedom from some of the statutory obligations which lie on local government. I believe that that is a way in which we might seek to give local government a better chance of achieving the economies we all desire throughout the local government services. But none of us desires a severe cut-back in the scope of those services.
I am very glad to see the Minister of Health is present, because I was going to mention one other aspect of the Economist article. It said that if the local authorities sought to cut back in domiciliary health services and their other health services, particularly the home help services, that would add very considerably to the cost of the health service in the country, because the people concerned would not be cared for by home helps etc. but would have to be cared for by the National Health Service. If the Government insist on this type of cuts they may make cuts in a sector which will cost Government overall rather more in public expenditure throughout our economy.
It has been mentioned from this side of the House that capital expenditure decided on many years ago is coming to fruition. Everyone wants that capital expenditure to be useful, but it will, I am certain, generate more expenditure by local authorities.
I am quite clear that the responsibility for lopping back local authority expenditure lies with the present Government. Labour has produced the stagnant society and I am afraid that it is the public which will feel the pinch. All in local government—I mean by that those volunteers who are serving in local government and the local authority officers—are doing their best in an impossible position. They are being told on the one hand to economise and on the other to expand services. The plain fact is that under Socialism Britain cannot afford expansion. The only things going up at present are the cost of living and the rates.
I cannot understand how the Leader of the House could claim in a speech at the weekend that the Government had cured inflation. He is a tremendous optimist. The Government should be in the dock for failing the nation. The


Prime Minister should take the responsibility for the cuts which are being imposed on local government. Many Departments are involved. The Minister of Housing and Local Government cannot possibly be responsible for all his right hon. and hon. Friends who are issuing Ministerial Circulars urging more expenditure. Each and every Minister, led by the Prime Minister, should say exactly where the cut-backs should take place.
It is abundantly clear tonight that the high hopes of the National Plan and the false hopes of the White Paper before this year's General Election have been abandoned.

10.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Perhaps I might begin with the nearest thing to an apology which I have to make. If, by any chance, my right hon. Friend has erred in regard to paying adequate respect to the Statutory Instruments Committee, which is not admitted, I can only say that the reason was that we were extremely anxious to get all the information available not only to the House but to the local authorities. They, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) rightly said, need all the time they can have between now and the estimates. We had a little difficulty with another place over some Amendments which had to be cleared out of the way. This delayed the Royal Assent, so that we were pressed for time. We were, therefore, very anxious to get the Order out and available for discussion as soon as we could.
Section I of the Local Government Act, which has only just been passed, directs that, in fixing relevant expenditure and the grant, the Minister must have regard to economic conditions. That is not new. Virtually the same words are in the 1958 Act. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to have regard to the economic position. It is because of the economic position that we are not able to provide for the kind of increase in local government expenditure that everyone in the House has said he would like to see and no one more than a spending Department would like to see. But if the Government are doing their job with any kind of responsibility, they

have to have regard to economic conditions, and if the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) does not know that we are in the middle of a desperate economic crisis then everybody else does.

Mr. Rippon: The Leader of the House says it is cured.

Mr. MacColl: It is not cured but we have gone a very long way indeed on the road to curing it. The effect of the Government's policy on exports has been referred to as well. Exports last month were at an all-time high—higher than they had been in the previous month. The balance of payments situation has been steadily improving over the last few months. This is not the record of a Government who have faltered or failed to stand up to the economic crisis. It is the record of the Government who have tackled that crisis with determination—determination to do the job even at the risk of losing some popularity.
It is against this background of determination that we must view the situation. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had shot Santa Claus straight between the eyes. I am sorry to say, five days before Christmas, that we must tell the House and the country that there is no Santa Claus. There is no way of getting more money to spend on social expenditure and local government services except by increasing the national income and it is essential to make this clear.
My right hon. Friend has been asked to accept responsibility for the cuts that have been made in the relevant expenditure. That was accepted in the White Paper. It has been stated by my right hon. Friend and I have no hesitation in repeating it. Of course we accept responsibility for the cuts.
There are really two kinds of cut. There is an element of what one might call "fat" in estimating. There is bound to be. In aggregating the estimates of a vast number of local authorities, as we have to do, there is always a certain amount of over-estimating. But, as my right hon. Friend said, that is not the whole story. He has said that, with our present level of national income, we cannot have more local government expenditure than we are allowing for. If we had more, he said, we would find ourselves again in economic troubles


and again facing inflation and again in difficulty with our monetary position.
It is curious that among all the many quotations which have been produced in the debate those which have not been produced are those which have spoken of the inflationary effect of public expenditure and of the importance of keeping it down. What we have had tonight, quite understandably, in the face of an attempt to control public expenditure, has been a scolding for not spending more. I do not quarrel with that and it is quite understandable. However, if a Government are fit to govern, at the moment they have to take responsibility for saying to local authorities and the nation that we cannot afford at present to go beyond this level.
I want to make clear the limits of what we are saying. We are not saying that there has to be a cut in the standard of services. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said that my right hon. Friend had spoken about reducing growth and lowering the standards of services, but he was not correct. My right hon. Friend spoke about reducing growth. He is satisfied that the level of relevant expenditure at present is enough to keep the services going at the level at which they have been going for the past two years, but he recognises that there has been and has to be some slowing down of growth, some decelerating of the natural ambitions of local authorities to improve their services.
I would like for a moment to consider the position of education. We have been asked questions about the standard of education. This is important not only because education is a very important service, but because it is the biggest in relevant expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science studied the original forecasts which came in and found that those for teaching staff, pupils and students, required revision—they were not fully accurate. That did not mean that in all cases they had to be reduced. The figures for 1968–69 show an increased estimate for teachers' salaries, because my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there will be an increase in the number of teachers in the service by then. My right hon. Friend said last week, I think, that there was no intention to defer raising the school-leaving age, which answers the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham.
We have heard a good deal about education generally and the failure of the National Plan. The estimate in the National Plan is for an increase in education expenditure of 5·8 per cent. per annum from 1964–65 to 1969–70. In fact, under the Rate Support Grant Order the increase for 1966–67 to 1967–68 will be 5·8 per cent. and for the year 1967–68 to 1968–69 it will be 5·8 per cent. and for the year 1965–66 to 1966–67 it has been 6 per cent. We have thus kept up within the target set by the National Plan. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health assures me that the position is the same—

Sir E. Boyle: I am still not clear how the hon. Gentleman can be sure of that figure, bearing in mind that this after all is still in the nature of a general grant. Surely, if there is a very large cut in the allowed relevant expenditure, a cut of more than £100 million, it is precisely in education, which is by far the biggest spender, that there is the biggest chance of a cut in the amount spent on the service and, incidentally, the biggest chance of a very large rate increase. What I am puzzled about is how the Government can be so confident about the figures which the hon. Gentleman has announced.

Mr. MacColl: These are the estimates which are provided for in grant. It is true, and it has always been true since 1958, that in education expenditure there is a discretion. Every local authority has a discretion. In many local authorities there is liable to be bickering between the finance committee and the education committee on how much to spend on education. My right hon. Friend has made it clear what allocation is available in the grant for education expenditure.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government pointed out, he has also power to check that the standard of services is maintained. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is the straight argument that we should have a special grant for education. The last Government were firmly against it, and we have not in these proposals departed from that.

Mr. Rippon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be dealing with the point that I put to him, that one needs to know which estimates have been cut within the table on page 11? Will he show that


there has been no cut in education and it is estimated that the cuts should come somewhere else?

Mr. MacColl: I gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman the figure—or if I did not, I should have done. I said that the figure for educational expenditure would be 6 per cent. between 1965–66 and 1966–67. The position regarding education is that the growth over the previous year will be 5·7 per cent. in 1967–68 and 6·1 per cent. in 1968–69.

Mr. Rippon: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary misunderstood what I said. There is a table on page 11 which shows the total of accepted expenditure, and how that is built up. We should like to know what cuts, in terms of figures, the Government have made, item by item, and how the £104 million and £105 million are made up, because they are at June 1966 prices.

Mr. MacColl: It would be difficult to give a detailed breakdown of the actual cuts, because the final figure is fixed as a global figure. The figures which I gave are the important figures. They are the answer to the suggestion that the new proposals will mean a cut in education, the major service. It is quite clear from those figures that we are allowing for a reasonable expansion of education.
I was going on to say that my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Health, was satisfied that in the field of welfare and health a substantial increase has been allowed which will enable local authorities to expand those services.
We were asked to dictate to local authorities how they were to spend their money. The point was put that if we were saying to local authorities, "This is all that is available in the way of grant", we ought to say how it is to be allocated. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously putting that before the House, then it is a most remarkable and heretical view of the working of both the control of expenditure and the grant system. Surely, the point of the grant system is that, having fixed the total amount of grant, having calculated its distribution on the basis of an objective formula, one should leave it to local authorities to get on with the job. One does not say to them that they have to cut this, that or the other figure. If we had produced an

appendix to the Paper which said that local authorities were allowed to spend so much on particular services, there would have been a hullabaloo. We should have heard in the debate about the dictatorial attitude of the Government and of the brusque way we were treating local authorities.

Mr. Temple: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to paragraph 27 of the Paper, "General administration and miscellaneous"? By an abstruse calculation one can arrive backwards at the local authorities' estimates from the data given there. As I said earlier, a decrease of 20 per cent. is expected, and I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he thought that a 20 per cent. decrease could be achieved in fact.

Mr. MacColl: As I said before, a certain amount of this is over-estimating or represents estimated growth which we think is too large, but we are quite clear that we do not believe that these new grant figures will lead to a diminution in the quality in services. What we say is that, although it is quite understandable that local authorities should make the criticism and want to improve their services—we all do—in the present situation it cannot be done.
Several questions were asked about the estimates and about why we had not yet produced an accurate apportionment of the grant as between local authorities. Various estimates have been made of the amount which each authority will get. There is no mystery about this. We are not trying to hide anything. The simple reason is that we have not yet got from the local authorities their final estimates for next year. It is fairly early in the financial year; there are three months to go before the normal preparation of final estimates. All the figures given by hon. Members about the position in their own local authorities are rather speculative because they cannot have been through the normal processes of finance committee determination and final estimate. They are not final figures, and we cannot, therefore, hope to have final figures.
Beyond saying in general that we have no reason to believe that there will be any drastic reductions in grant for any local authorities, we can do more than wait until some time next year, when we shall have the figures available. We are


anxious to produce them, and we should deal with them as soon as the final figures are available, but we are in that difficulty at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) spoke of the particular difficulties of the Borough of Havering and the difficulties in London. It is really for the London boroughs and the Greater London Council together to discuss and work out an equalisation grant which they want to have put into the Order. We are quite happy to meet them and do what they think is right. But the inner London boroughs have higher average domestic rate payments than in the outer London boroughs, and certainly higher than in Havering. Therefore, I doubt that there is a case for doing what the outer London boroughs want to do. However, if after negotiation and argument the Greater London boroughs desire to do that, we shall be happy to meet them.
The formula we have produced is a better formula than the one under the old Order. It is more sensitive to changes. The new education units introduced make in a more sensitive mechanism for distributing the grant among the education authorities. On the whole, therefore, there is every reason to believe that, although some authorities are bound to feel that they would like more—this is natural; people do not say that they would like less—it will do justice as between council and council.

Sir D. Renton: How can the hon. Gentleman say that this new system is more sensitive to changes when those local authorities which are changing most rapidly come off worse by it?

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does rather jump his arguments. He says this, and has said this repeatedly during our debates that we have had on these matters, but—The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Chester says he is right. All I can say is he has not succeeded in convincing the local authority associations, whose authority the hon. Gentleman regards as being so sacrosanct, that there is a case for adjusting grant to meet the special needs of those particular areas. Our position, as I have said in earlier de-

bates, is that we do not think there is a case for it either, but if we are wrong, we can always alter the terms of the formula when the next rate support grant is made.
In finishing I would remind the House of what the position really is. After listening to some of the speeches made—allegations against the Government of swindling, allegations that this is carping, mean behaviour by the Government, and all the rest of it, I would remind the House what the Government are doing for local authorities for the next two years. Take the position of this year, 1966–67. The total amount of the grant is £1,261 million. If we apply that same formula, the formula which hon. Gentlemen opposite have claimed is so magnificent, to the expenditure of the next year, it would have given £1,341 million. We are giving £1,381 million, which is £40 million more than if we had given what hon. Gentlemen opposite spent an hour in Standing Committee upstairs asking us to do, and £120 million more than they are getting for the current year. That is the measure of our failure to rise up to our responsibilities! In addition to that, as the House well knows, we are making this new, extremely effective relief of domestic ratepayers through the domestic element, where we are giving 5d. of the grant for the domestic element. I think that is a good illustration how the new grant is fair, and adjusted to the needs of the moment.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the specific point I put to him about the statement by the Minister without Portfolio in another place.

Mr. MacColl: I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for the Minister without Portfolio in another place. I do not know what he did say.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Order, 1966, dated 14th December, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th December. be approved.
General Grant (Increase) Order, 1966, dated 9th December, 1966 [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SCOTLAND (GENERAL GRANT)

10.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
This Order is made under Section 2(2) of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, and seeks to increase the amount of the general grant payable to local authorities in Scotland in respect of the relevant expenditure for the two years 1965–66 and 1966–67. There is, accompanying the Order, House of Commons Paper No. 245 and an explanation of the circumstances concerning this Order.
The House will recall that the main Order of 1964 fixed the amount of general grants for 1965–66 and 1966–67 at £80·5 million and £84·5 million respectively. Those amounts were supplemented last year in the Increase Order of 1965 to £82·07 million and £86·2 million respectively. The present Order seeks to raise the aggregate amounts to £83·185 million and £93·13 million and is probably the last General Grant Increase Order that we shall see under this procedure.
The main bulk of the increases come out of the increases in teachers' pay. I anticipated this at the time of the debate last year by saying that we could not include a definite amount for that, but that, since the negotiations were proceeding, clearly they would be eligible for inclusion in an increase order this year. The revised salary scales for Scottish teachers were effective from the 1st April, 1966, and they represent the main increases.
If hon. Members will look at the Appendix to House of Commons Paper No. 245, they will see the proportions, in figures, of the amounts that are increased. The three local authority associations, with whom we have discussed this, as is the practice, gave their acceptance to the figures shown in the report. So much were they willing to

accept the figures that they denied me the opportunity of meeting them again, saying that they were content to leave the matter at the official level.
I think that the local authority associations deserve some congratulation, not only for their application in this matter, but also for the very reasonable way in which they approach these problems. They could be a matter of irritation, as some hon. Members know, but we have had a very helpful experience with them recently.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the Under-Secretary of State has told us, we expected that there would be a large proportion of a General Grant Increase Order devoted to education and, within that, the teachers' salaries, because of the award which had occurred during the year in question. But, in the accompanying report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, it is clear that there are considerable increased costs, in addition to teachers' salaries. It seems that they are mostly in education, because so much is shown in the table included in the Appendix as falling under the education services.
But for 1966–7, there is the large sum of £600,000 for rates, £534,000 interest on loans, £180,000 for transport, and no less than £639,000 for fuel, property repairs, food, and what is described as "etcetera". I think that we should hear more about this expenditure, which is in addition to the very large amount for teachers' salaries which we knew was coming.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that this is likely to be the last Increase Order of this kind, and I suppose that we ought to record this in some way. But there has been criticism from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House in the past about the scope within which additional expenditure could qualify for an Increase Order of this kind. The successor to the general grant—the rate support grant—is to have Increase Orders on almost exactly the same principles. We went into this at considerable length during our discussions on the Local Government Bill, the final stages of which are due to take place this evening.
No doubt a similar Increase Order will be presented in a year's time, and it will be called the Rate Support Grant Increase Order. It seems that the Government will again have to consider virtually the same factors as they have done for this Order, and we shall see the results in the form of an Order and an accompanying report of this kind. But if the hon. Gentleman gets the permission of the House to speak again, we would like him to tell us when a Scottish Rate Support Grant Order will appear, and when it will be debated, because today we had the English debate, and as this is probably the last occasion on which we will consider an Order of this kind we would like him to tell us about the future.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether in the White Paper No. 245, to which he referred when dealing with increased salaries for teachers, there is provision for an increased number of teachers. Is there provision for an increase, which may be unlikely in this financial year, in the event of the abolition of fee-paying schools in Glasgow, or indeed the abolition of State-aided fee-paying schools in Glasgow? This seems relevant to this Order, in that additional expenditure will be incurred in the event of those things happening.
There appears to be no provision in this Order for such an increase, but as this is likely to be the subject of violent political controversy during the next few months, I hope that my hon. Friend will give us an assurance that, even though this may be the last General Grant Increase Order—and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) made a constitutional debating point about this—if local authorities are involved in additional expenditure because of the introduction of comprehensive schools, or because of outright changes during the financial year, or because of the abolition of fee-paying schools, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to any applications by them for increased grants.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The House can sometimes be

a depressing place, but I do not think that we can ever be quite so depressed as when we receive these Orders, because they remind us of two things: first, the enormous increase which is taking place in prices under this Government; and, secondly, the enormous increase in local government expenses.
I think that we sometimes underestimate the extent to which, under this Government, local authority treasurers are facing a real nightmare. The problem has been serious for many years, but under this Government the local authority treasurers really have a terrible time and face an appalling situation every time they have to fix the rates for the year.
To make a brief mention of the extent of this problem, I should like to refer to a letter which I received only this morning from the treasurer of Great Universal Stores. He said that in Glasgow the rates burden for commercial premises would increase quite dramatically from £196,000 to £433,000, an increase of about 120 per cent., the increases ranging from 81 per cent. to well over 300 per cent. When we realise that this could have an adverse effect on trade, and possibly lead to the closure of premises, we realise what an appalling situation we are in.
I have three specific questions to ask on this Order. The first arises out of a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). To what extent does the Order provide for possible increases in the demand for local authority services? I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether he interprets Section 2(2) of the Act of 1958 in such a way that the increased demand for local authority services can be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Provan has referred to the possibility of a reduction in the shortage of teachers. I am concerned at the possibility that local authorities could be faced with a substantial demand on their welfare services as a result of the great increase in unemployment taking place under this Government, and which will probably continue in the future. I want to know whether any provision can be made for this under Section 2(2) and if local authorities have done so.
Secondly, I want the Under-Secretary to go into a little more detail about the negotiations he had with the local authorities. We have had this global figure of the increase in relevant expenditure, but I would like to know whether discussions did take place, how long they took, and if final agreement was reached. I am afraid that although we have heard that agreement was reached, from little things we have heard through the grapevine we have the impression that, under all Governments, negotiations with the Scottish Office are not a question of equals discussing a matter—because at the end of the day the Government have to make a decision, and sometimes local authorities are placed in a situation where they have to make the best bargain they can in the circumstances.
There is one final question about the actual figures. I was surprised to see the figures presented, particularly on the question of provision for the various services. We see, for example, a dramatic increase of ·11 million in the provision for education in 1966–67. The question which arises: what percentage have the Government allowed, in respect of that increase, for the increase in relevant expenditure? The increase in relevant expenditure for the year 1966–67 has been estimated at the substantial figure of £11·5 million. Under this Order the Government are allowing an increased grant of £6·93 million. From a very quick calculation this would appear to work out almost exactly at 60 per cent.
That estimate may be a little out, but if the figure of 60 per cent. has been fixed for 1966–67 it would appear to be directly relevant to the total increase in expenditure by local authorities which has been accepted by the Government. This figure is about 63 per cent. If we are to ensure that the Government accept the load of the total local government expenditure they have committed themselves to bearing why does this figure work out at 60 per cent., instead of a figure rather above that? This figure should have been arrived at bearing in mind the percentage of local authority expenditure which the Government have indicated they would bear.
This Order does not only make us full of gloom and depression; when we look forward to the future of local government,

bearing in mind the comments made by the party opposite before coming to power, it also makes us realise what an intolerable burden is being placed on local authority treasurers when they are trying to face the future with confidence.
I am depressed to read the document. It can only bring more gloom and despondency to local authorities, and before we have another Order of this sort I hope that the Under-Secretary will commit himself to interpreting Section 2(2) more widely, so as to make provision for the increase in demands for local authority services that we know must come. If he will not commit himself to this, at least he should see that the Government make sure that the law will be altered to make such provision possible. All the time, the local authorities are chasing after inflation. They have never caught up with it yet, and under this Government I doubt whether they ever will.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: This Increase Order makes slightly strange reading at this time when the whole country is being subjected to squeeze, freeze and all the rest. I understood that the Government's policy was based on the fact that anyone who had to bear or was faced with increased costs should absorb them by economies and savings in other directions. I appreciate that the major part of the increase provided for in the Order is due to the increase in teachers' salaries, which we all welcomed. If the increase were purely for that reason alone. I recognise that it would be acceptable, but, of course, it is not for that alone. There are several other items which also show substantial increases.
It is up to the Government to explain a little more the reasons for these increases. In particular, I hope that the Minister can explain something about the item "National insurance: employers' contributions", which shows the substantial increase of £267,000 over the expected figure. I do not think that there has been a substantial increase in employers' contributions since the original figure was estimated. Possibly it has something to do with adjustments concerning the Selective Employment Tax. It would be interesting to know how this figure is made up.
I reinforce the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for more information concerning the item "Fuel, property repairs, food, etc." Here, surely, is expenditure which could be curtailed or in which economies could be made to avoid such an increase. Everyone, in industry and elsewhere, is facing increases in cost in fuel, property repairs, food and everything else. If it is reasonable for industries, firms and individuals which suffer such increases to be expected not to pass on their prices to the consumer but to absorb the extra costs by economies and the like, will the Minister explain why similar economies and stringencies should not be applied to expenditure in the public sector? This is a reasonable request. If the remainder of the policy is supposed to make sense and to add up, it is reasonable to expect such economies also in the public sector.
I am not a skinflint by nature. If this extra money can be justified, and is to be spent on services of which we all approve and which we want, I am very happy. In the present conditions of squeeze and freeze, however, the Minister is obliged to explain in a little more detail why there is this difference between the original estimates and the present need.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is obliged to explain what efforts he has made to ensure that economies are made. I assume that he has made those efforts and that this is the result of the best economy that can be made in these items. Thirdly, he should explain clearly, so that not only we, but the public, can understand, why, if everyone else is supposed to absorb increased costs, the public sector should be glibly granted an increase of £11 million above what it was previously allowed.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: Lest there be any misunderstanding about the views held on this subject by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the need to curtail expenditure. There can be no doubt that, with the ever-increasing numbers of people employed in Government Departments in Edinburgh and elsewhere, something must be done to reduce expenditure. Great

care must be exercised to ensure that when increases are sought they are really necessary.
I was for a long time associated with the Larbert District Mental Hospital Board. At one time, when I was the board's chairman, the board had a part-time employee, Mr. Robb, a well-known Stirlingshire solicitor of the firm of Welsh and Robb. Mr. Robb retired and we appointed a Mr. Johnson to this position of responsibility. Mr. Johnson carried on for a number of years in that position, without assistance, and we thought that he was reasonably well employed. Then one day he sought an increase in his staff; he wanted a typist.
Two of the board's members were given the task of investigating the matter. We did so and, because we felt that it was asking a bit much for Mr. Johnson to be given a full-time typist to assist him, we agreed that he should be helped by a part-time typist. Then the National Health Service legislation was introduced and the Royal Scottish National Institution—which at that time also had a part-time clerk—was merged with the hoard of which I was a member. Today, the general administration of that work involves the full-time occupation of 40 or so people. This state of affairs is being duplicated throughout the land.
This process of increasing staff and expenditure has been going on unchecked under both Conservative and Labour Administrations. As an ordinary ratepayer and taxpayer—and I think that I am the highest ratepayer in Stirlingshire—I object to being called upon to subsidise the lucrative way of life that many officials and semi-officials lead in Government Departments.
It is easy for a Minister to accept the recommendations of his senior officials. Apparently one's salary and status is automatically raised when one has more staff to control. No Government since the war have had the courage to look into this matter as though they were a private business man looking into the affairs of his own business. I had hoped that the new Labour Government would have the courage to do this, but I am beginning to lose faith in the saying that new brooms sweep clean.
The Minister is suggesting increases in salaries and wages—including teachers' salaries; but do not let us think that this


is all in respect of pay for teachers—totalling £9,113,000, plus ancillary minor awards of another £900,000. Is this necessary? If I do not curtail expenditure and balance my books in my business I will soon find myself out of business. It would be a good idea if some Ministers were put out of business if they do not balance their books. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree so readily. Successive Tory Governments allowed this matter to get out of hand and run riot.
Time and again hon. Gentlemen opposite told the electorate that they would curtail expenditure in this sector of the national economy. They purport to be good business people, but they did not do that. If anyone cares to look up the records, they will find that numbers and expenditure increased by leaps and bounds, just as they have under this crowd. There is absolutely no difference between one side and the other in this respect.
I say deliberately that the problem is that there are too many Members in this House who, on the one side, have no business experience and, on the other, have business experience because of their education and because of their fathers. There are few hon. Members with practical business experience. That is the tragedy of government, from whichever side it comes. However, that is, perhaps, a little diversion.
Interest on loans has increased by £534,000. I should like to know why. It is time we got a clear, concise and truthful reason why those things are not being curtailed and contained as ordinary businesses are expected to curtail them and contain them. There can be no excuse for Government to be run on any but the most strict and proper business lines, and this is not taking place.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will warm to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) for his great cry to the Government to exercise a sense of business management, although I join with him in feeling that this business sense will not be exercised, because it simply does not exist.
There is a curious phrase in paragraph 4 of the Order:
Since the Increase Order was made, further increases have occurred in the level of costs, prices and remuneration which could not be quantified at that time.
That appears to be yet another example of administrative gobbledy-gook of which I complained in another connection a few days ago in this House. What does this mean? It means, I suppose, that increases have occurred which the Government have not planned for. I accept that the increases in teachers' salaries could reasonably come under that heading, but many of the other costs which the House is now asked to approve are the direct result of the Government's own incompetence and bungling, particularly in matters of taxation.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the House quite clearly what part of this enormous increase, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred, springs from the Selective Employment Tax. The impression given to the House was that the tax paid in respect of people employed in the public service locally would be repaid, so that the whole operation would cancel out. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether the delay in repayment of the tax applies to local authorities as well as to private employers. If so, is this the reason for the vast increase of many tens of thousands of pounds in the taxpayers' bill?
Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what part of this massive increase in fuel, property repairs and food springs from the Government's own increase in the fuel duty in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends boast of sheltering Scotland from the effects of their policy. But when we examine the matter we find that Scotland is not sheltered at all. The costs imposed by the Government on the taxpayer fall particularly sharply on the people of Scotland. The latest increase in fuel duty imposed by this thoughtless Government will cost the people of Scotland £5½ million in one year. How much of that is passed on to the taxpayer and ratepayer through the Government's lack of forethought? To what extent are the people of Scotland being asked, in effect, to pay this added and unnecessary fuel bill twice over?
Will the Under-Secretary tell us what proportion of these increased costs springs directly or indirectly from the Government's increases in taxation? I hope that he will consider that question, and deal with the point seriously, because it is causing concern to people in Scotland. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire referred to that.
The Government, naturally, call on private employers to hold down their costs and not to pass on increases but to contain everything. They say that no matter what they do these costs must somehow or other be met by the employer. But what an example the Government set! Whenever costs go up as a result of Government action, whenever taxes are increased because of Government policy, the Government pass those costs on. Whenever the Government decide to increase postal charges and the like, those costs are passed on.
The Government put themselves into a position of unparalleled privilege in financial matters. I hope that they will look again at the massively increased bill to the taxpayer and let the House and the people of Scotland know to what extent it springs from the Government's own improvident and misguided taxation policies.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: It is necessary at this stage of our discussion to make some observations on the Order. I do so with some trepidation after the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) about qualifications to speak on such matters of finance and business, because I confess that I probably would not meet the standards he put forward.
Nevertheless, I suggest that having been a member of a local authority I have some experience and interest in commenting on the proposition before the House. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary some questions about the local authorities' attitude to the Order when the negotiations were going on, and about their acceptance of it. Will any local authorities be worse

off as a result of the discussions and negotiations?
I find it very difficult to understand some of the comments of hon. Members opposite, particularly the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) when he talked about the question of the increase in rates. I do not know whether he was arguing in favour of the extension of derating. If he was not, I would point out to him that if we have the examples he quoted of the colossal increase in rate burdens they have sometimes been a consequence of certain firms and undertakings in the area where he resides buying and selling property. As a result, the Assessor had no option but to increase the rate burden, because he must have regard to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that the hon. Member is getting away from the terms of the Order, which only allow discussion of whether increases should be made and distributed on the basis proposed.

Mr. Eadie: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart who deemed it right to bring in the question of the big rating burden in Glasgow and quoted a specific firm. The point I was making was that the firms themselves were responsible for increasing valuations.

Mr. Taylor: In relation to the further increase in local authority burdens envisaged in the Order, how does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the group to which I was referring, which was presented with an increase of rate costs this year of 120 per cent., should proceed in determining their prices, bearing in mind the price freeze? Where can they find £237,000 extra and yet keep their prices stable?

Mr. Eadie: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants me to cross swords with him on the question of rating valuation, since you have ruled it out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be glad to discuss it with him, but I am sure I would be ruled out of order. I am certain that I should make rings round him. We have had the case


of one firm which has done this and which protested against increased valuation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both hon. Members are out of order on this aspect.

Mr. Eadie: The Opposition have protested against the whole philosophy of the general grant provisions, arguing against the method and set-out. They forget that the Conservative Government were responsible for altering the percentage grant system to this one. There is something hypocritical about their arguments.
I want to put a specific question to my hon. Friend concerning the term "miscellaneous". We in the local authorities always call "miscellaneous" a "beautiful one". Under "miscellaneous", I understand, there is a rise from £35,000 to £100,000. How was this arrived at? When discussing "miscellaneous", we often find something very revealing in the figures. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be more explicit about this aspect.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: The Under-Secretary of State does not seem to be having a happy response to this Order from any hon. Member. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) is rapidly losing faith in his own party, but all right hon. and hon. Members on this side have completely lost faith in the Government's control of local authority finances.
I wish to put some questions about the Appendix. I am glad to see that the teachers and the firemen are getting the awards due to them. It is long past the time when the teachers should have got their rise if we are to have enough of them for when the school leaving age is raised. I ask the hon. Member for more information about the miscellaneous minor awards.
On the apportionment among services, there are even more glaring anomalies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, we are concerned about the position of the local authority treasurers and finance committees. They appreciate that, where the grant has gone

up considerably, they have to match this with a percentage provided by the ratepayers.
So many of these services are ones over which they have relatively little control, like education. Indeed, where there are joint committees they have very little control at all. I am looking particularly at the Fire Service. Hon. Members will see that there has been a very considerable increase in expenditure over and above the wage award. I would not like to think that fires are getting bigger and better at present, but I would have thought that in this age, where we are having serious restraint put on expenditure, the Fire Service might be one that could resist the temptation to spend as much as it is.
We do know from a Parliamentary Answer the other day that the total population has gone down considerably under a Socialist Government. Therefore, one wonders why there should be this increase in expenditure on the registration of electors. Yet there has been no increase in regard to road safety, and here is something I should have thought should have an increase. The same applies to police traffic patrols. Some of us are very keen to see the highest efficiency in our police force, and I do not think the Government has allowed sufficient for the expansion of this service.
Then, in a reverse way, we see an extraordinary increase in town and country planning. I would like the Under-Secretary to give us more information as to why this is so. Is it to implement the Land Commission Bill? We really ought to know.
We should also like to know why there is a standstill for physical training and recreation. One thing we should look after for the young people of Scotland is to see that they have a fair share of public expenditure for physical training and recreation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said, we have completely lost confidence in the Government's control of local authority finance, and it is up to the Under-Secretary tonight to give us a very much more detailed and definite explanation of the figures he is presenting before us, otherwise we can only imagine that


the situation will go from worse to worse and the rate will go higher and higher until he resigns his office.

11.18 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am sure that I was not the only Member who was most impressed, and refreshed, by hearing the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) speak in the courageous and frank way he did. I am always a little afraid that our population tend to become conditioned to the Government spending enormous sums of the taxpayers' or the ratepayers' money without any questions being asked, and I am relieved to hear that there are some hon. Members on the other side who have the frankness to ask these questions. Indeed the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) put his finger on some pertinent points in the questions he was asking.
I would have expected to see the Under-Secretary coming in here this evening on his knees, offering apologies to the House and to those having to produce all this extra money. And even if he was not going to apologise, I hoped he would give us a detailed explanation why it is necessary for us to be considering these mammoth figures tonight. There must be some good explanation, I have no doubt, but I think that we are entitled to know what it is.
I fully endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), but, whereas he limited his criticism to having lost confidence in the Government on local authority expenditure, our loss of confidence has extended to fields far beyond that, and I hope the Under-Secretary will not leave here this evening thinking that we are satisfied with many other forms of expenditure.
I believe that the House deserves a very full and frank explanation in much more detail of why we have to produce this extra money and what sort of negotiations and what sort of bargaining took place before these figures were reached.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Tonight, we have had complaints that on some items listed in the Order there has not been increased expenditure and complaints that on other items there has been increased expendi-

ture. In other words, some hon. Members have tried to have it in every possible direction, saying that expenditure on those items on which it has not been increased should have been increased, and that expenditure on those items on which it has been increased ought not to have been increased.
Trying to deal with an Order of such detail at this hour of the night illustrates the point which I was trying to make last week in our debate on procedure, when I said that in the House we did not have adequate control over the machinery of the Scottish Office and its expenditure. Certainly, we cannot hope to get detailed answers to the detailed questions which have been put from both sides of the House about the figures which have been supplied to us. This is no way in which to scrutinise Government expenditure in Scotland and I hope that the Scottish Office will support the view that one of the new Select Committees which we are to have ought to consider the administration of the Scottish Office.
I have only one specific question to ask the Under-Secretary, and it arises from experience in my constituency. It arises under what is listed as welfare services for the handicapped. I do not know whether this is peculiar to my part of Scotland, but I have a number of complaints about the services for handicapped people, particularly handicapped children, services which at the moment are totally inadequate and which are a part of the welfare services which is not meeting the needs of the people. I am sorry that there is to be such a modest increase in this expenditure which is a service on which expenditure ought to be greatly increased, because the service should be greatly increased.
I conclude by repeating that this sort of late-hour short debate is not the way in which we should scrutinise Government expenditure in Scotland, and I hope that more effective machinery will be introduced.

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. Is there any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which you can convey to Mr. Speaker, or to the Officers of the House, the distress which is felt by Scottish Members at finding that Scottish business is repeatedly


put at the end of the day's business, so that hon. Members who have to travel long distances to deliberate upon these important subjects often find that they are virtually the only Members here at these late hours? Could you convey to the powers that be the feeling that we are badly treated in the House in this respect? I hope that at least my protest will be registered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand how strongly the hon. Member feels about this matter, but it is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of order. I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if it is a matter for the Government I shall take it up with Government officials.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must resist the hon. Member's attempt to make a further point of order out of a point which I have ruled not to be a point of order.

11.24 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The usual channels resolve these matters. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) will find that not only the Government are responsible for matters of business being arranged as they are.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): indicated dissent.

Dr. Mabon: Yes. The hon. Gentleman had better not interrupt unless he knows what he is talking about, because I do.
It is not fair to blame the Government entirely for this arrangement, but I will not pursue that matter now. There is a certain unfairness about believing that the Government have options in these matters. This is an Order proceeding under an Act of Parliament and is the last to be taken under the present legislation. If we had taken it with the earlier English Orders, Scottish hon. Members could have spoken earlier. However, I understood that we were to take this Order clear of the other two because they are essentially different from this. The previous debate concerned the Rate Support Grant Order for England and Wales. We cannot discuss

our Rate Support Grant Order for the very reason, which the next business shows, that we do not have the Royal Assent, as the English have, to our Local Government Bill. We have to discuss this General Grant (Increase) Order separately from a Rate Support Grant Order. That is the reason why we are proceeding in this way, and I understood that it was agreed. Obviously, however, exception is taken to it, and, no doubt, we can pursue that point.

Mr. G. Campbell: The point which has been raised is why the Scottish business could not have been taken before the English.

Dr. Mabon: That is a point which the hon. Gentleman and I might address ourselves to at some other time. We cannot do it now. If I had had notice of this point beforehand, we might have been able to do something about it, but I had no notice whatever that exception was taken to this procedure.
May I point out that we are to discuss other business which is absolutely relevant to the General Grant (Increase) Order, and it is wrong to presume that we cannot take two conjoint measures at the same time, whatever the inconvenience to individual hon. Members.
It is unfair of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) to quote words in the explanatory Paper and describe them as "gobbledygook" when, in fact, those words are taken directly from the 1958 Act. They are words of his own Government, which have been repeated in the Paper as proper words to use. If they are gobbledygook, I do not recall the hon. Gentleman protesting about them and objecting to their re-enactment in the Bill which we are shortly to discuss.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I have.

Dr. Mabon: We all know about the speeches of the hon. Member for Cathcart. We cannot repeat them, but we get the point.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), however, who is always very careful when he speaks officially from the Front Bench and not unofficially from the back benches,


knows the facts. Neither the Conservative Government nor this Government believed that there should be a fourth element introduced into the Increase Order. We debated this at length during the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. Even if there were a case for saying that there should be a fourth element apart from costs, prices and remuneration, we cannot at this moment be in order in discussing a fourth element. We can discuss only the three elements in the Order, and I cannot, therefore, follow a good many of the remarks which have been made about the inadequacy of the Order.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said, but, with respect, he has got the point wrong. The objection I made was that the "gobbledygookness" of the sentence arises from the context in which the whole statement is made, a context of further increases in the level of costs and prices. My argument is that a certain part, probably a large part, of the increase in the level of costs and prices arises from the Government's own mishandling of the situation.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is now shifting his ground. Paragraph 2 of the Paper begins by stating what Section 2(2) of the 1958 Act does, and these words are taken from the Act.

Mr. MacArthur: indicated assent.

Dr. Mabon: I am glad that we do not disagree about that.
The Government can only bring in matters which are concerned with any unforeseen increases which have taken place in the three elements, and I can justify the Order only on that basis. This has been done in conjunction with the local authority associations. I thought that the House would be quick to grasp that the local authorities always ask to see the Under-Secretary of State at the end of the discussions at the working party level, then going to elected member level, and then to Ministers. They invariably ask to see the Minister.
I cannot recall "off-the-cuff" any Increase Order since 1958 on which the local authority associations did not do so. This is the first occasion. Perhaps the reason is that this is the last Order

of this kind and its effect is to expire at the end of the current financial year. That may be the reason, but after their three informal meetings, they expressed themselves as satisfied and not wishing—as I had offered—to meet me.
The fact is that the local authority associations will be meeting me, acting on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, early in January, to discuss the rate support grant, and we will, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly suggested, be having to bring a Rate Support Grant Order to the House in late January, or February, depending upon the Parliamentary timetable.
There is absolutely no question of the local authority associations feeling there is no point in asking Ministers to meet them. I met them on 2nd December on a very controversial matter and they were very vigorous in their criticisms and they were anxious to make suggestions, which we have encouraged them to do, on another matter apart from this Order. I do not find anything at all "modest" or "cringing" on the part of the local authorities.
On the contrary, I think that their representatives are quite vigorous and very Scottish in their approach to Ministers; they are not at all frightened of Ministers and do not have a feeling that the Government have the whip hand of them. The suggestion that they have is backstairs gossip which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) ought not to listen to.
I cannot, because of the Ruling from the Chair, speak of valuations on this Order. Nor is it directly connected with this Order. I endorse the Ruling from the Chair on that matter. I am only sorry the hon. Gentleman did not realise that earlier, for I am sure that he would not have raised it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will accept that the fact that rating costs have increased by 16 per cent. in one year is a matter with which the Government should be concerned, and that this is a very serious point at a time when prices are supposed to be frozen?

Dr. Mabon: I very much agree; we are concerned about that, though we have


done better than hon. Gentlemen opposite—by 3 per cent. at least in that one year.
But if this Increase Order is not agreed to, then the rate burden of those people will be all the greater. So the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have to make up their minds about this, whether they want the Order to go through, whether they want it to be bigger, or whether they want it to be smaller. I have not heard any definite arguments which they want. If there is a standstill the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) complains that physical education must be being cut down or not expanded. If it goes up, that is an outrageous increase. If it goes down, it is a slashing cut. We cannot win.
As for the suggestion that the Opposition have lost faith in the Government, I do not accept it. They have not lost faith in the Government: they never had any faith in the Government. We reciprocate that. We never had any faith in right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they were in Government. Let us not have that humbug talk about their having lost faith in us.
Let us look at these matters in a businesslike way, and I will itemise them, as I was asked, to explain the Order. I have said that we cannot on this Order take into account the development policy. That is a matter which may arise under the rate support grant that we will be discussing shortly. Where there have been no increases in prices, costs, and remuneration—police traffic patrols, physical training and recreation and road safety—those items are stable. Whether the policy ought to be expanded or not in the next year comes under the rate support grant.
The increase in town planning is a very important matter. Scotland is going through a very significant phase in its development. There are planning advances which have to be made in many parts of the country which, frankly, have not been touched. I will not go into all the areas—the Borders, the South-West and the North-East—but all these require major efforts in planning, which can be expensive in professional terms, which we have to countenance. Therefore, the £38,000 estimated here is well justified. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member

for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about miscellaneous minor awards. Of course, we have had various wage awards.
I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have the impression that this is an outrageous or extravagant Order, when something like £9,300,000 out of £11,530,000 will go in increased salaries, all of which were agreed before the freeze and, therefore, have to be honoured. The real size of the increase for which we are asking, putting aside the wage awards, is in the region of £2 million.
If my hon. Friend wants a list of those concerned, I must warn him that it is rather a long one, but it includes nurses, midwives and all kinds of workers in local government who deserve to have their wage and salary increases endorsed. They have been negotiated through the proper machinery before the standstill took effect, and they must be honoured. I hope that no one, in criticising the size of this Order, suggests that they ought not to be honoured.
On the question of interest and loans, there is a broadening view of capital expenditure in these services and, therefore, the servicing of these capital debts is larger in volume. But there is an element in the rise in the market cost of borrowing of something like one-quarter per cent. in that. I do not conceal that for a moment.
On property repairs, the figure for Selective Employment Tax is £45,000. There is nothing in that for the cost of borrowing to meet payments of Selective Employment Tax. The breakdown of the National Insurance employers' contributions concerns redundancy payments, about which I understand there was no quarrel, wage related benefits, and the recent Pensions (Increase) Act. I thought that these were all commendable, and it seems to me that the section dealing with National Insurance in both years ought to be acceptable by the House. The figure for redundancy payments is £75,000, that for earnings related benefits is £146,000, and that for the Pensions Increase Act is £46,000.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman making no allowance for Selective Employment Tax? If he is not, I welcome it. Is Selective Employment Tax not charged on local government employees?


Can he assure us that there is no Selective Employment Tax burden on ratepayers or taxpayers within this Order?

Dr. Mabon: In these financial years, no. As far as we are concerned now, the answer is, "No." We shall want to give a considered reply on the debate on the rate support grant.

Mr. W. Baxter: What are we saving with a greater degree of efficiency?

Dr. Mabon: This General Grant (Increase) Order arises out of the 1958 Act, which never allowed the Government to take a comprehensive look at local government expenditure. That was one of the major criticisms which we made against the previous Act of Parliament. In the present Bill, we are being given the chance in the rate support grant of looking comprehensively at the budgets of local authorities collectively and, for that matter, individually.
The existence of a Rate Grant Support Order and the machinery following there-from will mean that we will have a better control over public expenditure in the local government sector than we have ever had. I do not conceal my right hon. Friend's concern about local government expenditure, his anxiety to make sure that we get value for money and that the money is spent properly. The control over national expenditure is certainly tighter than the control over local government expenditure. I am sure that no one would deny that. We are seeking to get towards that in our new Local Government Bill, and we are acting as quickly as we can. We have to do what we can to make sure that local authorities get value for money and do not spend unnecessarily in any field of activity.
They have a lot to do in welfare services about which I was asked. There are at present 187 homes for the aged run by local authorities, 15 other homes are in the course of being provided or extended, and plans for 47 homes or extensions are under consideration. In the current grant period the number of places provided is expected to rise by 200. I can hardly see any hon. Member objecting to that.
I was asked about inflation, and so on. I have looked up the cost-of-living indices and all the other factors, but I shall not weary the House by giving illustrations.

During the last year we have had a good turn out in the cost of living position. It has stabilised remarkably well, particularly during the last six months. The position compares quite favourably with the first year of this Government's term of office, and compares very favourably with the concluding years of office of the previous Administration. I shall not go into comparisons, but if there were arguments about costs and prices, I could present the figures to show the difference in performance between this Government and the previous one. Ours has been much better.
With regard to the out-turn of the General Grant Orders, I have made an assessment of the kind of out-turn made in all the years, and if one takes the 1959–61 position it shows that there was about a 7 per cent. estimate which had to be made increasing the original Order. In 1961–63, the estimate was more than 20 per cent. In 1963–65, it was 16 per cent., and in 1965–67 it was 13 per cent. I admit that there are reasons for these figures, and I am not seeking to claim anything more than that the pattern of development is reasonable and acceptable in some ways, although not in every year. I think that 1961 was perhaps a bad year for the previous Administration, but there are within that certain legitimate percentages which are well justified. I hope that with that explanation the House will agree that the Order should be made.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he would answer all the questions, but he has overlooked one which I believe is important if we are to have a proper appreciation of what he is asking us to approve. The hon. Gentleman said that £2 million was outside the wage awards. He did not say what proportion was accounted for by fuel duty and the other increases in taxation about which I asked. How much reflects increased taxes and increased costs which spring directly from the Government's decisions?

Dr. Mabon: I have a breakdown which shows that on the argument about road fuels, out of the total figure which was mentioned, deducting the earlier comment I made and making it not £639,000 but £567,000, the petrol and road fuel element was £23,000. I think that in the context of this Order


the hon. Gentleman's speech, in line with that figure, was not quite up to his usual standard. There was some exaggeration in what he said about fuel.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Privilege is involved in Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28 and 29.

Clause 18.—(RATING OF CERTAIN OFFICE PREMISES OF NATIONALISED BOARDS &C.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 9, at end, insert:
() In determining the value of any office premises which are to be rated by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, any part of the premises which is not used as an office or for office purposes, or for purposes ancillary to the use of the premises as an office or for office purposes, shall be disregarded.
() The assessor for the area in which office premises occupied by an authority to which this section applies are situated or the occupier of those premises may apply to the appropriate Minister for a determination of the question whether the premises are situated on operational land of the authority, and if the Minister determines that the premises are not so situated the occupier thereof shall be liable to be rated in respect of the premises from the date of that determination.
() For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the appropriate Minister in relation to premises occupied by—

(a) the British Railways Board or the British Waterways Board, is the Minister of Transport;
(b) the Gas Council or any area board constituted for an area in Scotland under the Gas Act 1948, is the Minister of Power; and
(c) any other board, is the Secretary of State."

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This agreeable Amendment, which was put forward in the other place, concerns the general administrative offices of the nationalised industries. This is part of the undertaking which I gave on Report, that we would discuss this matter further in the light of the comments which had been made to us. The Amendment meets our undertaking, and I hope that it proves acceptable to the House.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I have one question. In the first part of the Amendment it suggests that when we are dealing with office premises of a nationalised industry which require to be rated, any part of the premises not used for an office or for office purposes will be disregarded. Does this mean that under the rating law there will be one set of rules for private office premises which are rated and another set of rules for those of nationalised industries which are to be rated? The principle should be one of equality of treatment. It seems that we are to have a separate rule for offices of nationalised industries.
I appreciate that this is a new provision and that these premises were not rated previously—they were included in the global figure which the nationalised industries paid—but it would be unfortunate, and a rather unusual precedent, if we were to treat the offices of nationalised industries for rating purposes under a completely different set of rules, because if there is an appeal it will put the valuation appeal courts in a very difficult position.
This will be specially so when the offices of a nationalised industry are being used for the purpose of comparison in appealing in respect of an office rated under the normal rating provisions. Can the Under-Secretary say why he thinks that this is a good provision, if it has a precedent, and what will be the consequences when occupiers of private office premises use the offices of a nationalised industry for the purposes of comparison in appeals before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was good enough to acknowledge that this is a new provision. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the


House welcome it. But it has raised a number of difficult problems. The basic problem is that we have offices which are on operational land—which he will see defined in Clause 18(3)—and offices which are not. The proposal in the Amendment would mean that if there were a case of dispute between an assessor and a nationalised industry, the nationalised board and the assessor would each be given the right to apply for determination to the appropriate Minister in each case—the Minister of Transport in the case of railways, the Secretary of State for Scotland in the case of the Scottish Electricity Board, and so on. If a decision is unacceptable there are at least two agents in this matter of appeal.
On the question whether or not offices on operational land are treated quite differently from offices which are for general or administrative purposes, that is to say, not on operational ground, the first subsection exempts rooms which are not offices in office blocks used for administrative purposes, that is to say, not on operational land, and the second subsection deals with the problem of those offices which are on operational land. This is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that in the case of private office premises run by a commercial organisation, if some part of that building is not used for offices it is included in the total rateable value in the normal way, whereas here, in the first subsection, we provide that where an office is occupied by a nationalised industry—admittedly not on operational land—this part will be disregarded, so that if British Railways or the Central Electricity Authority moved out and a private occupier moved into those premises there would have to be a rate charge on that part of the premises which, when used by the nationalised industry, were not used for office purposes?
This would appear to have the most appalling consequences for the consideration of appeals, because it means that instead of having a fixed value for property there will be possibly one value if the occupier is a nationalised industry and a slightly higher value if it is a private concern.
Can we be told whether this means that the question of the occupier will determine the amount of the rating assessment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a rather long intervention.

Dr. Mabon: In reply to the hon. Member's "brief" intervention, may I say that the attempt in the second and third subsections is to deal with those offices that are not comparable with commercial undertakings because they are on operational land. The intention of the first subsection is to make it clear that general administrative offices are not so treated. They will be treated in the usual way. The others will be treated in this exceptional way.
We are borrowing this separation of definition about operational land from the town and country planning law. I agree that it is not free from difficulty, but obviously, we have to take something. I am sure that in his anxiety to make sure that certain premises of the nationalised industries are treated like other commercial premises, the hon. Member would not wish that the operational parts of the premises should be treated unfairly: that is to say, they should be treated according to their exceptional circumstance. If there is a dispute, the matter can be taken up by either the assessor or the nationalised board, whichever party feels aggrieved, and the Minister responsible would then be concerned.
We should let this definition go and see how it turns out. I cannot see any better rule which could be adopted at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 22, leave out from "undertaking" to "not" in line 23.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be convenient, if the Minister agrees, to take, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to do that.
These are drafting Amendments. As I said earlier, the definition of operational land previously referred to land used for the carrying on of the nationalised undertaking and land in which the undertaking held an interest for that purpose. This was correct in planning law, from which the definition was borrowed, but is inappropriate in the case of rating, where the only consideration should be whether the land is, in fact, used for the carrying on of the undertaking.
Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which stand together, are drafting Amendments. Lords Amendment No. 4 prevents the definition of office purposes from going too far, that is to say, by including telephone and telegraph exchanges and computer installations, which are, in the work of the nationalised industries, more operational than administrative.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 24.—(LIABILITY TO BE RATED IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 33, after "25", insert "and section 27(2)".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that if convenient to the House we take, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 6.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Lords Amendment No. 5 is consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 27(2) concerning the penalty for failure to notify empty houses. In that sense it is a drafting Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 6 is an Amendment of substance. Its effect is that if empty property were reoccupied for three weeks, as has been proposed by the other House, instead of six weeks, which was the position when the Bill left this House, the period of three months' grace would start afresh. We discussed this matter in Committee. The question was whether six weeks was long enough to prevent a landlord escaping the rating

of empty property by putting in an employee, for example, as a tenant for a token period of a day or two.
On reflection, after the proceedings elsewhere, we thought that three weeks was still long enough to prevent actions of this sort. At the same time, it meets the position of people in holiday areas who were concerned about the original provision. In a sense, therefore, this is a compromise between the two points of view and is, I think, acceptable.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: From our point of view, the second of the two Lords Amendments is an improvement. The matter arose not in Committee, but on Report, because these new proposals came to us at fairly short notice just before Report. It was suggested from this side that six weeks was, unfortunately, too long for somebody who was away and who would be coming back from holiday or from abroad and would then be going abroad again. Three weeks is certainly an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 24.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 13, at end, insert:
In paragraph (a) of this subsection the reference to a legal prohibition does not include a prohibition which arises from the failure of the owner to apply for a certificate under section 9 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959".

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to prevent an owner escaping the empty property rate by refraining from applying for a building certificate. Under Clause 25 (3,a) the empty property rate may not be levied at any time when the owner is prohibited by law from occupying it. This was intended to apply to cases of bankruptcy or statutory incapacity to manage his own affairs. But under the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, the occupation of property is prohibited until a building certificate has been obtained, and as the Bill stood an owner of new property


awaiting a tenant—and often standing empty for long periods; particularly in respect of speculative building, such as offices and so on—could escape the empty property rate by deliberately refraining from applying for a building certificate until there was a tenant in view. Under the building legislation this is quite acceptable, but it was not intended that an owner should be able to escape rating by this means.
The Amendment therefore provides that failure to apply for a building certificate does not constitute, for rating purposes, a statutory prohibition on occupying the building. If however, an owner applied for a certificate but was refused one, he would be protected from being rated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27.—(NOTIFICATION OF UNOCCUPIED DWELLING-HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 38 and insert:
subject to the next following subsection, be liable to be rated under section 24 above in respect of the dwelling-house as if he were in occupation of the dwelling-house; and no reduction shall be made under section 7 above in respect of rates payable by virtue of this subsection.
() A rating authority may. if in all the circumstances it seems to them fair and reasonable so to do, reduce the amount of rates payable in respect of any dwelling-house for any period by virtue of subsection (2) above to the amount payable by virtue of section 24(2) above.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to the House if Lords Amendment No. 9 were discussed at the same time.

Dr. Mabon: That is convenient because the House will recollect that when we discussed the Clause on Report there was some criticism about the provision imposing a new statutory penalty. I protested at the time because, as I asked an honorary treasurer at a meeting of local authority associations which I attended, how could this be enforced if there was no penalty?
I asked the House then to answer that question, but nobody came up with the answer, apart from one suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie)—a suggestion on which I acted—in respect of valuation notices. However, having had time to consider the matter, and other suggestions having been made to us, the Amendment is the result. It means that there should not be a penalty but that there should be a type of sanction. This sanction should take the form of liability for 100 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. rates.
No question of prosecution for non-notification would arise; when the rating authority found its man, it would have power to charge the full rates, with the same powers of recovery as for ordinary rates. The effective amount of this penalty might be either less or more than the £20 maximum previously specified in the Clause, but for a house with a rate bill of £40, empty for a year in all, it would amount to £7 10s., which is, perhaps, about the average penalty the courts would impose.
The second part of the Amendment is designed to ensure that liability for 100 per cent. rating can be removed when it is reasonable to do so. The rating authority will have power to make the reduction when it seems fair and reasonable to do so. In addition, a rating authority retains at all times its discretion under Clause 24 not to levy the empty property rate at all.
There will, therefore, be several alternatives available, according to the nature of the circumstances. The rating authority could insist on maintaining 100 per cent. rates where there had been a wilful attempt to conceal that a house was empty; it could reduce the rates to 75 per cent. as soon as the owner had explained why he had failed to notify, or at some time afterwards, when the owner had, as it were expiated his failure to notify; or it could remit rates entirely if the owner convinced the authority that it was genuinely impossible for him to find a tenant.
The Amendment arrives at a happier solution than was contained in the Bill as it stood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should congratulate the Government for being willing, as always to have second


thoughts on any matter; something which our Conservative predecessors never had.
Amendment No. 9 provides that empty houses will not need to be notified if they are in any case exempt from the rate leviable on empty properties. Clause 25 lists these exemptions, which include properties which the owner is prohibited from occupying by law—for example, under a clearance order—property for whose purchase a central Government or local Government Department is treating, property which is listed as of architectural or historic interest or is subject to a preservation order under the Ancient Monuments Acts, and manses and other clergymen's residences.

12 m.

Mr. G. Campbell: We noticed that the Government moved this Amendment in another place very soon after the Bill's arrival there, and we welcome this change of mind, as the hon. Gentleman described it. The Amendment removes an objectionable part of the new Clause, which appeared in this House just before the Report stage. That objectionable part would have established a new offence, with a penalty of up to £20, which many law-abiding citizens in Scotland would have found they had committed because they had no knowledge of the new scheme requiring them to register.
Although we divided on the matter on Report on 9th November, we congratulate the Government none the less having second thoughts in another place. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—because he often denigrates—[Interruption.]—If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has something to say, perhaps he will intervene in the normal way. I was trying to point out that the hon. Member for Fife, West does at times pour scorn on the usefulness of another place, but in this case that place has enabled the Government to reconsider the matter and change their mind.
We consider the 100 per cent. rating, which is the alternative, a great improvement. When we were pushing our case on Report we were considering a situation in which the individuals who might be committing this crime would not be interested in their rates being reduced—that was not the point; they were happy to go

on paying 100 per cent. rates—but simply that they would be committing a crime because they had not carried out registration. We therefore congratulate the Government on their second thoughts, and ourselves for having pressed the Government, because this was something that came to us at very short notice. It is to everyone's benefit that there should not be an offence of the kind the Government had proposed.

Mr. William Baxter: I cannot resist the temptation to say that I endorse the action of the Government in another place in deleting the penalty that was in the Bill when it left this House. I am not sure whether it was the Opposition that I was following or the Opposition that were following me, but whatever it was it had a very good effect. I agree that it shows the usefulness of another place. There is no doubt that because of deliberations in another place this Bill has come back a much better Measure than when it left this place.

Mr. James Davidson: I add my congratulations to the Government on the alteration of this Clause. In the original debate I was accused of ambiguity in my attitude. I hope that the Under-Secretary will now say that I was not ambiguous, because he himself has changed his mind.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I do not feel at all like congratulating the Government on this Amendment. It was utterly disgraceful of them to come here on Report with the kind of provisions that have now been reversed. The Government were creating a criminal offence—and the hon. Gentleman cannot escape the implication—of failure to give notice when property became unoccupied, a thing to which we took the strongest possible exception.
I hesitate to congratulate them on this, but we are very grateful that they have gone back on that proposal. It would have been quite disgraceful if a provision of that nature had ever gone on the Statute Book. We felt very strongly about that and are glad that at least at this late stage the Government have realised how disgraceful was their original proposal.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I acknowledge some of the comments. Of course, the


Government were impressed by the debate. The Government listen to debates, and there was a number of occasions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to suggestions made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). If the Government's only reward is to be blamed for having thought wrongly in the first instance, that will not encourage Ministers of the hon. Gentleman's own Government—if there ever is one again—or this Government to do that. I counsel the hon. Gentleman to realise that when the Government make an effort to amend something immediately after it leaves this place, because it considers criticisms to be valid, it should be congratulated. Such is the essence of Parliamentary democracy.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) that I do not resile from what I said in Committee, but the Amendment meets his original contention that we should have 100 per cent. of these people all the time. He should therefore also welcome the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause A.—(PLACING OF STAFF ETC. OF LOCAL AUTHORITY AT DISPOSAL OF SECRETARY OF STATE OR OF ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 5, at end insert new Clause A:—
A.—(1) A local authority may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State or another local authority for the placing at his or their disposal, for the purposes of any function of a party to the agreement under any enactment (including an enactment in any local Act) or any instrument whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, on such terms as may be provided by the agreement, of the services of persons employed by the local authority and of any premises, equipment, and other facilities under their control.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for superannuation purposes, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, service rendered by a person whose services are placed by a local authority at the disposal of the Secretary of State or another local authority in pursuance of this section is service rendered to the first-mentioned local authority.
(3) In this section "local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 113(1)

of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, and "premises" includes land and buildings.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Clause that was added when we saw the possibility of legalising an anomalous position that was drawn to our attention. It legalises the position of local authorities that lend staff to other local authorities or the Secretary of State for the performance of statutory functions It is already fairly common for local authorities to lend staff to each other at times of crisis—it may well have happened in the past few days. Another example is that an assessor might lend his staff to another assessor who is not so far on in completing the revaluation of his area.
There is no compulsion under the Clause for a local authority to lend its staff. It retains complete freedom to do so, and on the terms on which it will do so, for example, in regard to reimbursement and the length of time that staff are to be seconded. The same considerations would apply to premises and equipment.
Subsection (2) is a technical provision to ensure that continuity of employment for superannuation purposes is preserved.
The Clause applies to county councils, town councils, district councils and all types of joint committees.
I apologise to the House because this provision was introduced in another place, but this once again shows the advantage of having a revising additional Chamber.
There was a similar Clause to this, in respect of road construction units only, in the English Bill. We thought it wise to have this wider Clause in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 29 which I fancy is consequential.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the circumstances under which he thinks a local authority might lend its staff to the Secretary of State? He dealt with transfers between local authorities, but I do not think that he gave examples of circumstances in which he thought that a local


authority might lend staff to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that if the hon. Member exercises his very fertile imagination he must know that there are very valuable people in local authorities whom we might be anxious to have for a period for advice on, or consideration of, particular problems. It may well be that, in relation to some of the items under this Bill, we might have asked for secondment, but I do not think that we did.
It is easy to visualise circumstances under which some person from a local authority might be of value for a period of secondment to the Secretary of State. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we shall be considering as a House the problems of Kilbrandon, for instance, in respect of the welfare services. It may well be that, for a period, we might require secondment of someone on that subject. There have been innumerable cases in which this might be possible and we think it wise to cover such circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause B.—(INTERPRETATION OF "PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKING" IN SECTION 379(1) OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1947.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 21, at end, insert new Clause B:
B. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the definition of public utility undertaking in section 379(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 does not include an aerodrome undertaking or any business ancillary thereto.

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a useful proposal which helps local authorities, particularly those in the Highlands and Islands, to provide landing strips and airfields, as they are doing to an increasing extent in order to develop communications. It was drawn to our attention that, under Section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, local authorities are restricted in the extent to which they can cover the cost of public utility undertakings out of

the rates. We think it wise, therefore, to make this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(PAYMENTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO OFFSET EFFECT OF SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 21, at end, insert new Clause C:
C. A local authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 may make to any person such payments as the authority consider appropriate for the purpose of offsetting, either wholly or in part, payments by way of the selective employment tax made by that person in respect of persons employed for the purposes of any contract entered into by the authority before 4th May, 1966.

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Following the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax, there was some doubt about the powers of local authorities to revise fixed price contracts entered into before 4th May. Contracts entered into since S.E.T. was announced will, of course, have taken account of the effect of the tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45.—(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 3, leave out
the Road Traffic Act 1934".

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that with this Mr. Speaker, we consider Lords Amendment No. 28, in Schedule 6, page 45, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Section 41(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, was repealed because Clause 29 of this Bill gives county councils power to light roads for which they are responsible. On further examination, it appeared that there could be a situation where a county council might wish to light a road for which it was not the highway authority and for which the power under Section 41(8) would be necessary. It is, therefore, considered desirable to retain the power.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(RATE SUPPORT GRANTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 18, at end, insert
, or in the case of a year of revaluation, in proportion to their said products, whichever is the higher, estimated in relation to that year under section 12 of this Act.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment puts right an oversight in respect of the distribution of grant. It is designed to ensure that, within a county, grant is distributed in a revaluation year on the up-to-date valuation and not on the valuation for the previous year, Which may by then be badly out of date. Clause 12(2) ensures that the same principle is followed with regard to other financial apportionments within a county, but it was overlooked that this had not been achieved in the case of the distribution of the Rate Support Grant, which would have been a serious matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(RATING OF UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 12, leave out
and ends at or after".

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 18, in page 39, line 16, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 17, and insert:
(a) if within 28 days of the receipt by him of a notice under section 9(4) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 or of a completion notice in respect of the lands and heritages concerned the owner so requests the assessor, the assessor shall certify to him and to the rating authority the gross annual value and
Lords Amendment No. 19, in page 39, line 21, at end, insert:
the owner and the rating authority shall be entitled to appeal or complain with respect to the value so certified as in manner provided by or under the Valuation Acts,
(b) the assessor shall, when he issues a certificate wider head (a) above, send to the owner of the lands and heritages a notice of his right of appeal by virtue of the said head (a), and".

Lords Amendment No. 20, in page 39, line 23, after "certified", insert
or determined as the result of an appeal or complaint
and Lords Amendment No. 21, in page 39, line 42, leave out "hereafter".
These Amendments protect the owner of empty property which is empty at the time revaluation takes place or was empty in the preceding year. Under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, a rating authority can serve a notice on the owner of a building that it regards it as completed, even though it may not have been finished off to the liking of a future tenant, and proposes to rate it in retrospect as soon as a rateable value is attached to it.
Paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule then provides that, if part of the period of vacancy fell in a previous valuation quinquennium, the assessor shall certify what its value would have been in the earlier quinquennium as well as its new value. The Amendments give a right of appeal against the certificate for the earlier quinquennium and makes sure that the owners know of this right. He has a right of appeal against the value for the new quinquennium under existing law.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 46, at end insert:
; and the authority shall along with the completion notice send to the owner a notice of his right of appeal by virtue of subparagraph (4) below".

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment should be helpful to owners of empty new property by ensuring that when a completion notice is served on them by the rating authority—that is a notice saying that the building is deemed to be ready for occupation from a certain date—a statement of the rights of appeal to the sheriff is included with the notice. I think this is eminently desirable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 41, line 27, leave out "or dwelling-house".

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are drafting Amendments because, as a result of changes made earlier, there is no longer any reference to dwelling-house in Schedule 3 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 34, at end, insert:
. The provisions of this Schedule relating to newly erected buildings shall apply to buildings which are being improved by the owner and are thereby rendered temporarily unsuitable for occupation, and references to erection of a building shall be construed as references to improvements; and those provisions shall so apply with any other necessary modifications.
In this paragraph 'improvements' includes alterations other than such alterations as are described in paragraph 5 above, and 'improved' shall be construed accordingly.

Dr. Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment provides that buildings undergoing improvement should be exempted from the empty property rate, but that the rating authority would be allowed to serve a completion notice.
Buildings undergoing improvement, which includes alterations, will by virtue of this Amendment be exempted from empty property rating in the same way as new buildings until the rating authority serves a completion notice stating that the building is deemed to be ready for occupation as from a given date. This will allow necessary improvements to be carried out without the owner falling liable to rates, and at the same time ensure that an unscrupulous owner cannot avoid rates by protracting improvement work indefinitely. I think this is an eminently sensible conclusion, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we also welcome this Amendment so far as it goes, because this is another point on which we divided the House on Report. We are glad to find that the Government have made a move in another place. We also argued this at considerable length in Committee.
We feel that if a house is unoccupied because of improvements being carried out, then the owner should not be penalised for this. We are glad that the Government have come round to this view before the Bill has completed its stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair indicated that privilege was involved in a number of Amendments, the numbers of which were given to the House. As the House has been willing to waive its privilege in respect of these Amendments, I will see that appropriate entries are made in the Journal.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18(2) OF THE POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1956.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 9, leave out from "shall" to "the" in line 11 and insert:
send a copy of the proposed scheme to the police authorities concerned and shall specify in an accompanying notice".

12.20 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the next Amendment can be taken with this.

Mr. Willis: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
The first of these two Amendments removes from the Bill the requirement that, before making an amalgamation scheme under Section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, the Secretary of State should provide police authorities concerned with a notice describing the general nature of the proposed scheme, and substitutes for it a requirement that he should provide them instead with a copy of the proposed scheme.
In the case of Ayr Burgh v. the Lord Advocate in 1950—a case which arose out of an attempt by the Secretary of State to make an amalgamation scheme


under statutory provisions similar to those contained in Section 18 of the 1956 Act, the Lord Ordinary, Lord Birnam, expressed the view that all parties concerned should have an opportunity of offering their comments, if any, upon the details of the draft scheme. Lord Birnam's remark would seem to support the conclusion that the Secretary of State should supply the police authorities before the inquiry with a draft scheme of amalgamation and this would, no doubt, be the practice followed by Secretaries of State in making schemes under Section 18. The Amendment makes specific provision by Statute for this practice.
It will be evident that if police authorities are to be supplied with a draft scheme of amalgamation, there remains no need to supply them with a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme, since a draft scheme of amalgamation contains all the material which might be included in such a notice.
The second Amendment is simply a matter of drafting and is consequential upon the first.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will be very glad to support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. As he has said, as the Bill stands, there could be a procedural gap, as it were, which could lead to misunderstanding in future.
He referred to a case which is now something of a classic—the provost, magistrates and councillors of Ayr versus the Lord Advocate in 1950. It is quite clear from what the hon. Gentleman said and from the debate in another place that the Amendment is an improvement and will avoid misunderstanding by providing that police authorities shall have the complete details of a scheme well in advance, instead of just its general nature, for which the Bill originally provided. We welcome the Amendment and regard it as a distinct improvement to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 20, at end, insert:
(c) Where such an inquiry has been held, the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person holding that inquiry before determining whether the scheme should be made and if so subject to what modifications, if any.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State in laying a draft Order before Parliament is not bound to lay the identical proposed scheme which he sent to the police authorities and which was in the hands of the person holding the inquiry. Instead he may modify it in the light of the report of the inquiry, upon the representations by the police authorities concerned, or in such other manner as he thinks fit.
It might be argued that this Amendment is superfluous since Section 18(1) of the 1956 Act appears to have this effect already. However, no harm can be done by making the point explicit and this is what the Amendment does. The form of words which has been used is identical to that in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 of the Police Act, 1964.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I echo the Minister of State's closing words. No harm is done by the Amendment, but it is quite unnecessary. The only possible interpretation of Section 18(1) of the 1956 Act is that the Secretary of State has power to vary the original proposals in the light of any recommendations which are made. But there is no disadvantage in having matters put in for the avoidance of doubt, and. accordingly, we do not oppose the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(THE CORPORATION'S FUNCTIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, leave out from beginning to first "the" in line 15.

12.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. Austen Albu): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we might conveniently consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. They all hang together, being drafting Amendments except for No. 3 which contains the only point of substance. This is to meet a proposal made by Lord Normanton in the other place, who pointed out that, although the Bill gave the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation certain functions and powers, it did not clearly set out the Corporation's duties. We have accepted his suggestion, and we have accordingly put down this series of Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We on this side welcome this consolidation Measure. It is very much needed in Scotland in order that people may find their way through the housing statutes. The task was started when I was at the Scottish Office, and I was pressed by hon. Members opposite to

carry it through as soon as possible. I am glad that it has eventually been possible to complete it. We on this side have done everything possible to encourage its passage through the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his co-operation in our proceedings. I take this opportunity to put on record the splendid work done by the officials and draftsmen concerned in completing a useful job for the improvement of the Scottish housing scene.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to financial assistance towards the provision, acquisition or improvement of dwellings and the provision of hostels, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of subsidies in respect of dwellings in England and Wales completed on or after 25th November, 1965, or the sites of such dwellings, or in respect of the cost of such dwellings, being dwellings approved for the purposes of that Act by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State for Wales and provided by—

(a) a local authority; or
(b) a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns; or
(c) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the said Minister or Secretary of State;

(2) of advances to local authorities on account of such subsidies as aforesaid which may become payable in respect of the sites of dwellings provided by them;
(3) of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or letting of any dwellings or other land;
(4) of any increase attributable to the said Act in the amounts payable out of moneys so provided under section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958;
(5) of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland or by way of rate support grants to local authorities in England and Wales;


(6) of subsidies in respect of the provision, acquisition or improvement of dwellings in Great Brtain given by way of payments to the lender towards the amounts due in respect of loans made on the security of an interest in land by local authorities, insurance companies, building societies, friendly societies, development corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, the Housing Corporation, the said Minister or Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purpose of the provision, acquisition or improvement of dwellines on that land.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSING SUBSIDIES

Resolution reported,
That in connection with any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to financial assistance towards the provision, acquisition or improvement of dwellings and the provision of hostels, it is expedient—
(a) in connection with any provision of that Act for the subsidisation out of moneys provided by Parliament of loans on the security of an interest in land, to authorise charges to income tax and corporation tax—

(i) on sums received by the lender out of such moneys; and
(ii) by way of the modification of the Income Tax Acts and Corporation Tax Acts in their application to payments of interest on such loans;

(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act of the present Session by any Minister of the Crown.

Resolution agreed to.

ALDERSHOT GENERAL HOSPITAL (PAY BEDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]

12.30 a.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I do not think my constituency of Aldershot has been particularly fortunate in regard to hospitals. We anticipated that we would have a large general hospital, but that looks as if it is postponed for a considerable period. The point which I desire to raise tonight, and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so, is the question of the pay beds for private patients in the public hospital. The charges appear to be quite out of any logical order.
I do not think that it is wise to say that the object of raising the prices is to prevent queue jumping, because all beds, whether pay, amenity or ordinary, can be used without payment in cases of emergency or acute need, but I desired if possible to emphasise the variation in prices at different hospitals. In passing, let me say that it appears now that approximately 4,000 private hospitals have pay beds and something like 6,500 public hospitals have pay beds.
Before I deal with the position in Aldershot I should like to quote the example of two hospitals which are within a few hundred yards of each other and where the difference is £20 a week in the charges for pay beds; Bromley, £51 per week, and Farnborough—not the Farnborough in my constituency, but Farnborough in Kent—only a short distance away, £31. Each of the two hospitals has had its fees raised, contrary, as I would submit, to Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act of this year.
The effects of raising the prices at Aldershot in spite of the freeze are that costs have escalated, and I should like particularly, if I may, to indicate the very considerable amount by which they have been raised. In Aldershot General Hospital the figures for 1964–65 were £45 1s. per week. Those have escalated in the present year, 1965–66, to £57 1s., while next door, at Farnham, it is true there are no actual fee-paying beds, but if there were, it is estimated that the cost for them would be £34 6d.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that I would mention the hospital at Cheltenham, where the rise has been from £35 14s. to £39 11s. In the case of the Cambridge Military Hospital in Aldershot, without which Aldershot would be in still greater medical difficulty, although there are no records for 1964–65, in 1965–66 the costs per bed would be £40 per week.
The average over the whole South-West Metropolitan Region has gone up from £35 14s. 9d. to £39 13s. 0d. Looking at the estimated cost at Farnham, which is only a few hundred yards from Aldershot, it means that the Aldershot patient will pay £22 15s. per week more than anyone who is able to get a bed on the basis of the costs of the Farnham Hospital.
On average, the costs have gone up in 1965–66 over the country by 11½ per cent. Wages, salaries and higher prices are given authoritatively by the Ministry as being the cause. But we have the extraordinary position that the Aldershot Hospital is higher than the average of the London teaching hospitals for the year 1965–66 by 9s. 6d. per week. That may not sound very much, but when one considers the facilities which are available at the London teaching hospitals, it indicates the quite illogical position.
In the first part of what I want to say, I would refer the Minister, whose presence here tonight I greatly appreciate, to paragraph 32 of Command Paper 3073, under the heading "Public Sector". The subheading is "Prices, Charges and Fees of Government Departments", and the paragraph reads:
The Government intend to apply the principles of the standstill to all prices, charges and fees of Government Departments.
On 14th November, in answer to a Question, the Minister stated that the annual revision of prices was deferred while the implications of the prices and incomes policy were considered. I should like to ask him for a clear and definite statement of what consideration was given and why the annual revision was proceeded with. In the light of the statement in the White Paper to which I have referred, it would appear not to be justified.
Apart altogether from the breaches of the prices and incomes policy, is there not a case for considering the method of arriving at pay bed costs? I know that in January of this year the Minister announced a review of the pay bed policy which would involve legislation to calculate the cost of pay beds nationally, rather than from hospital to hospital, but for obvious reasons I do not propose to discuss possible legislation in this debate.
There are, however, matters which I think can be dealt with by amending Regulation 1953/420, which lays down the rules for calculating these costs. The view which I submit be adopted is the businesslike one of making certain that specially heavy charges can be carried forward over a period. For example, I am informed that decoration work has been done at Aldershot which will last for more than seven years, and, indeed,

that other work has been done which might last even longer. The point is that if someone happens to be ill during the year following that in which the heavy work is done, it means that he pays more for a bed in that year than he would in another year. If a business-like approach were adopted, and the costs were spread over a period, the payments would be fairer for patients for each year.
There are a number of hospitals, particularly the smaller ones, in which it is necessary to carry out special work. I have heard that in one re-roofing is necessary. This will throw all the costs out of gear, and this sort of thing can cause great hardship to people who have only quite modest means when they are ill. If there is this differentiation from time to time, great difficulty can result.
I think that I would not be wise to talk too much about the very technical matter of bed occupancy, but I am assured by those who have spoken to me about it that it is a very important issue, and it needs to be examined very carefully indeed. As it is almost impossible to tell when a particular maternity case will require admission, a bed has to be kept free for a certain period to cater for that contingency. This, of course, involves the loss of the use of a bed for that period though overheads continue. This does not apply to surgery cases, because a bed is available and can be used.
To sum up, I submit that there are two things which ought to be done. First, there ought to be a full explanation why this matter is not covered by the prices and incomes policy, and exactly what the position is about this. Secondly, I submit that this is an opportunity for the Minister to consider the appointment of a committee with a view to a more business-like arrangement about the costs and the work that has to be done in the hospitals, so that the payments may be more moderate than they have been in the cases about which I have spoken.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has touched on a point of principle which affects hospitals not merely in his constituency but all over the country. The fact that the Minister has had the courtesy to attend tonight—which we all very much appreciate—is an indication of the importance


of the matter. I read in today's Guardian that
Southend Hospitals Management Committee decided last night to refer to the Prices and Incomes Board proposals by the Ministry of Health to increase the cost of private beds. The Ministry says the increases, which were due to have been made in October, can no longer he deferred, but the committee claims they contravene the price.
The Minister will be aware that the Southend group of hospitals covers my constituency. I do not question for a moment the Minister's right to bring the relationship between the provision of and the demand for private beds more into line with that which obtains for other hospital beds. It makes sense to use the resources of our hospitals in the most economic and most efficient way.
I am fully aware that the 1953 Regulation lays down a formula which requires annual adjustment, and am aware also that the Minister intends to introduce Regulations shortly which touch on the subject. As regards the present position, however, there would have been an adjustment on 1st October, when the prices and wages freeze was on, and yet within a few weeks of that date the right hon. Gentleman has directed that hospitals should raise their charges. Why? Local authorities have been asked not to raise their rates and private firms are under art obligation not to increase their prices. Why should the hospital service be exempt from requirements imposed on everybody else? Of course, the newspaper is wrong; it is not possible for a hospital management committee to refer the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. Only the Government can make a reference to the Board. But I hope that the Minister will give the House and my constituents an explanation of what has happened.

12.47 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): First, I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) that the existing hospital facilities in the part of the world that he represents leave much to be desired. I agree, too, that the only satisfactory solution is the provision of a new district general hospital. I would not wish tonight to deny or confirm the speculations that the hon. Member offered about the possible timing of

that development, but the needs of his constituents are well in the forefront of the mind of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Board, which is responsible for planning hospital development in that area.
Mainly the hon. Member talked about the increase in the price of pay beds at Aldershot General Hospital. I propose to deal first with the general question asked by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) why, in view of the prices and incomes policy, have these charges recently been revised? Then I shall deal with the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot.
The White Paper on Prices and Incomes Standstill stated that the Government intended to apply the principles of the standstill to all prices, charges and fees of Government Departments. I can assure both hon. Members that very careful consideration was given to the implication of this statement in relation to pay bed charges, which were in any case due for revision in October. Hospital boards were told in September that my Department was studying the matter and that pending advice hospitals should make no changes in the charges then in force. Subsequently, at the end of October, they were told that the revised charges should be introduced as soon as possible.
There was nothing sinister behind this decision. It was not a case of the Government's ignoring the principles of the standstill when it happened to be convenient to them, nor—I can assure the hon. Member—of any discrimination against private patients. Earlier this year, in my reply of 31st January to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I announced a number of measures that I proposed to take following my review of pay bed policy. These were designed not to abolish facilities for private treatment in National Health Service hospitals but to promote the more effective use of hospital beds and to bring the relationship between provision and demand for pay beds more closely in line with that obtaining for National Health Service beds. These measures are in course of being implemented, although some will have to await legislation.
I have already explained in my replies of 14th November to the hon. Member for


Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and, later, to the hon. Member for Aldershot that the decision to introduce revised charges was taken because of the statutory requirement under the National Health Service Act, 1946. Section 5(1) of that Act provides that the Minister may set aside special accommodation for patients who undertake
to pay such charges as may be determined in the prescribed manner, being charges designed to cover the whole cost of the accommodation and services provided for the patient at the hospital, including an appropriate amount in respect of overhead expenses".
Thus, the wording of the Section requires charges to be very closely tied to costs. Neither I nor the hospital authorities are free to fix or vary charges at our discretion.
The manner of determining the charges is prescribed in the National Health Service (Pay Bed Accommodation in Hospitals etc.) Regulations, 1953. I hasten to assure the hon. Member that the Regulations under which I have been acting were introduced not by me, but by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when he was Minister.
Those Regulations require hospital authorities to revise their pay bed charges annually in accordance with the costs of the previous financial year and to introduce revised charges on 1st October. Although this annual revision may in a few cases result in decreased charges, obviously in the majority of cases the charges go up, just as hospital costs go up.
The Act thus imposes a statutory requirement for private patients to pay the whole cost of their treatment and for hospital authorities to determine their charges in accordance with the Regulations. This statutory obligation is not overridden by the Prices and Incomes Act. I am sure that the hon. Member does not advocate that I should have ignored or invited hospital authorities to ignore so precise a statutory requirement.
The introduction of these revised charges was deferred for a short time while I considered whether there was any legal means whereby a standstill could be imposed on pay bed charges so that they could remain unchanged during the standstill and the period of severe restraint. I was, however, advised that in view of

the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, which I have quoted, and of the knowledge which hospital authorities already possessed of what the proper charges should be under that Section, it was not possible, without risk of legal challenge, to make regulations postponing for this period the implementation of the revised charges. Accordingly, I had no alternative but to instruct hospital authorities to introduce these revised charges as soon as possible.
Private patients admitted at the old rates before hospital authorities acted on these instructions will not be charged the higher rates until they have been in hospital for three months. This is in accordance with an existing provision in the Regulations. For patients who have not yet been admitted, the revised rates apply, except that I have told hospital authorities that where, in their view, a legal or a moral commitment exists to admit at the unrevised rates, they should do so.
The hon. Member may be interested to know that the Joint Consultants' Committee, too, on learning of my instructions to hospital authorities, had its doubts and decided to take legal advice. The advice which that Committee received was published in the British Medical Journal of 10th December. That advice proved to be identical with that which I received, namely, that any action to postpone the revision of the charges due in pursuance of Section 5 of the Act would be open to challenge.
Before turning to the charges at Aldershot General Hospital, I must explain that it is for each hospital authority to determine the pay bed charges for each of its hospitals. Where the pay bed accommodation can be separately costed, the charges are based on that cost, but in the vast majority of hospitals, including the Aldershot General, the charges are based on the average daily cost per in-patient for the hospital as a whole. Charges therefore vary from one hospital to another and reflect the costs at particular hospitals.
Aldershot General Hospital is a small hospital of 66 beds, with two pay beds. Before the recent revision, the pay bed charge was £45 10s. a week, based on the costs for the financial year ending 31st March, 1965. The charge is now


£57 1s. a week, based on the costs for the year ending 31st March, 1966. This is an above average increase, but I am assured that the charges were correctly calculated according to the Regulations.
The main reason for the high cost at Aldershot General is the general shortage of beds in the Farnham Group. In an effort to keep up with the pressure of work, patients have a shorter stay than in most hospitals. The average length of stay per case in Aldershot General was under seven days in 1965–66 and 1966–67, compared with the regional average of about 14 days for similar hospitals.
The short stay entails more medical and staffing care and, as the flow of patients is quicker, calculations of the paper occupancy rate gives a lower rate than average, although the hospital is busier than most, since the turnover is faster, with beds vacated every seven instead of every 14 days. The average net cost per case at Aldershot General for 1965–66 at £54 was, in fact, less than the regional average of £67 for similar hospitals.
In 1964–65 the average in-patient cost per week for all patients, both paying and non-paying, at this hospital was £45 3s. Id. and for 1965–66 this had increased to £55 6s. 3d. The main reasons for this increase—which is, of course, reflected in the pay bed charges—were the recruitment of six additional nurses, together with salary increases, which accounted for £5 6s. of the increase,

and more domestic and clerical staff and wage increases, which accounted for £1 of the increase. At the same time, administrative expenses, including additional clerical assistance, increased by £2 12s., and extra expenditure on maintenance, repairs and considerable decoration undertaken came to £1 4s. per week. Those figures account for most of the increases quoted by the hon. Member for Aldershot.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East referred to the Southend Hospital Management Committee. I saw the report in the newspaper and it is correct to say that the Committee could not refer the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. I understand that the Committee has put into effect the revised charges, and I have no doubt that when it reads the report of this debate, it will appreciate the reasons for the action it was asked to take.
I agree that the disadvantage in the present method of relating pay bed charges directly to the cost at the particular hospital is that this can result in quite different charges for hospitals offering similar facilities, sometimes even in the same locality. I have already stated my intention, when opportunity permits, to introduce legislation to enable charges to be determined on a national basis for different classes of hospital.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.